presentation on bullying in the workplace

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Confront a Bully at Work

• Savvas Trichas

Build a strong network of alliances to support you.

Early career professionals are more prone to bullying than their senior colleagues. Research shows that power imbalances between experienced and newer workers can create an authority gap that has the potential to generate abusive and intimidating behaviors from those who have higher status. If you’re a young professional dealing with bullying at work, how do you navigate the situation and guard yourself?

• Become a bee: Start by finding your sting — a visible way to defend yourself from bullying behavior. For instance, make it known that you are someone who follows rules and procedures. Playing by the book can give you a sense of security, help you stay on track, and give bullies less weaknesses to exploit.
• Don’t let your emotions overpower your reaction: Put aside your anger, frustration, and the urge to snap back. If you react instinctively, guided by your negative emotions, you may end up increasing the conflict, reducing mutual gain, and damaging any chances of future collaboration.
• Build golden bridges: As soon as you realize you are getting in an office battle zone, start gathering evidence to block all exits besides the one you consider fair. Ask yourself,  “How do I make it easier for the bully to reach the decision that I want them to get to?” This can be an excellent way to inhibit workplace intimidation before following the official path.

Where your work meets your life. See more from Ascend here .

Whether it’s a difficult boss, an antagonistic coworker, or a disrespectful client, bullies exist in every area of the workplace. Professionals in the earliest stages of their careers know this better than anyone.

• ST Savvas Trichas, PhD is a keynote speaker who combines cutting edge research with instruction creating motivational moments with practical value. He is a 3-times TEDx speaker and has collaborated with several prestigious universities and organizations such as Stanford University, the University of Durham, the Ministry of Education and Culture, The Million Dollar Round Table, and the Association of Cyprus Banks. He is also associated with the FBI National Academy Associates Cyprus Police where he serves as a guest lecturer under the topics of management, communication, and deception detection.

Partner Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace

Bullying has been identified as one of the leading workplace stressors, with adverse consequences for the individual employee, groups of employees, and whole organisations. Employees who have been bullied have lower levels of job satisfaction, higher levels of anxiety and depression, and are more likely to leave their place of work. Organisations face increased risk of skill depletion and absenteeism, leading to loss of profit, potential legal fees, and tribunal cases. It is unclear to what extent these risks can be addressed through interventions to prevent bullying.

To explore the effectiveness of workplace interventions to prevent bullying in the workplace.

Search methods

We searched: the Cochrane Work Group Trials Register (August 2014); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, issue 1); PUBMED (1946 to January 2016); EMBASE (1980 to January 2016); PsycINFO (1967 to January 2016); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Plus; 1937 to January 2016); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS; 1951 to January 2016); Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA; 1987 to January 2016); ABI Global (earliest record to January 2016); Business Source Premier (BSP; earliest record to January 2016); OpenGrey (previously known as OpenSIGLE‐System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe; 1980 to December 2014); and reference lists of articles.

Selection criteria

Randomised and cluster‐randomised controlled trials of employee‐directed interventions, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time‐series studies of interventions of any type, aimed at preventing bullying in the workplace, targeted at an individual employee, a group of employees, or an organisation.

Data collection and analysis

Three authors independently screened and selected studies. We extracted data from included studies on victimisation, perpetration, and absenteeism associated with workplace bullying. We contacted study authors to gather additional data. We used the internal validity items from the Downs and Black quality assessment tool to evaluate included studies' risk of bias.

Main results

Five studies met the inclusion criteria. They had altogether 4116 participants. They were underpinned by theory and measured behaviour change in relation to bullying and related absenteeism. The included studies measured the effectiveness of interventions on the number of cases of self‐reported bullying either as perpetrator or victim or both. Some studies referred to bullying using common synonyms such as mobbing and incivility and antonyms such as civility.

Organisational/employer level interventions

Two studies with 2969 participants found that the Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workforce (CREW) intervention produced a small increase in civility that translates to a 5% increase from baseline to follow‐up, measured at 6 to 12 months (mean difference (MD) 0.17; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.28).

One of the two studies reported that the CREW intervention produced a small decrease in supervisor incivility victimisation (MD ‐0.17; 95% CI ‐0.33 to ‐0.01) but not in co‐worker incivility victimisation (MD ‐0.08; 95% CI ‐0.22 to 0.08) or in self‐reported incivility perpetration (MD ‐0.05 95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.05). The study did find a decrease in the number of days absent during the previous month (MD ‐0.63; 95% CI ‐0.92 to ‐0.34) at 6‐month follow‐up.

Individual/job interface level interventions

One controlled before‐after study with 49 participants compared expressive writing with a control writing exercise at two weeks follow‐up. Participants in the intervention arm scored significantly lower on bullying measured as incivility perpetration (MD ‐3.52; 95% CI ‐6.24 to ‐0.80). There was no difference in bullying measured as incivility victimisation (MD ‐3.30 95% CI ‐6.89 to 0.29).

One controlled before‐after study with 60 employees who had learning disabilities compared a cognitive‐behavioural intervention with no intervention. There was no significant difference in bullying victimisation after the intervention (risk ratio (RR) 0.55; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.25), or at the three‐month follow‐up (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.15), nor was there a significant difference in bullying perpetration following the intervention (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.54), or at the three‐month follow‐up (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.81).

Multilevel Interventions

A five‐site cluster‐RCT with 1041 participants compared the effectiveness of combinations of policy communication, stress management training, and negative behaviours awareness training. The authors reported that bullying victimisation did not change (13.6% before intervention and 14.3% following intervention). The authors reported insufficient data for us to conduct our own analysis.

Due to high risk of bias and imprecision, we graded the evidence for all outcomes as very low quality.

Authors' conclusions

There is very low quality evidence that organisational and individual interventions may prevent bullying behaviours in the workplace. We need large well‐designed controlled trials of bullying prevention interventions operating on the levels of society/policy, organisation/employer, job/task and individual/job interface. Future studies should employ validated and reliable outcome measures of bullying and a minimum of 6 months follow‐up.

Plain language summary

Are there ways in which workplace bullying can be prevented?

Bullying in the workplace can reduce the mental health of working people. It can also harm the organisations where these people work. There has been much research about bullying in the workplace. However, most studies have looked at how to manage bullying once it has happened, rather than trying to stop it happening in the first place. Many people who have been bullied choose to leave their job rather than face up to the bully. It is important to know if the actions workplaces take to prevent bullying are effective.

Our review question

What are the benefits of different ways of trying to prevent bullying in the workplace?

What the studies showed

We included five studies conducted with 4116 participants that measured being victim of bullying or being a bully and consequences of bullying such as absenteeism. We classified two interventions as organisational‐level, two as individual‐level and one as multi‐level. There were no studies about interventions conducted at the society/policy level.

Organisational‐level interventions

Two studies found that organisational interventions increased civility, the opposite of bullying, by about five percent. One of these studies also showed a reduction in coworker and supervisor incivility. They also found that the average time off work reduced by over one third of a day per month.

Individual‐level interventions

An expressive writing task with 46 employees, showed a reduction in the amount of bullying. A cognitive behavioural educational intervention was conducted with 60 employees who had a learning disability, but there was no significant change in bullying.

Multilevel interventions

One study evaluated a combination of education and policy interventions across five organisations and found no significant change in bullying.

What is the bottom line?

This review shows that organisational and individual interventions may prevent bullying in the workplace. However, the evidence is of very low quality. We need studies that use better ways to measure the effect of all kinds of interventions to prevent bullying.

Summary of findings

Numerous terms and concepts have been used as synonyms for bullying. These include psychological terror ( Leymann 1990 ), and work abuse ( Bassman 1992 ). Bullying in the workplace has also been described as: "harassment, intimidation, aggression, bad attitude, coercive management, personality clash, poor management style, brutalism and working in a funny way" by Adams 1992 . In the United States (US) and Canada, terms such as 'harassment' ( Brodsky 1976 ), 'workplace trauma and employee abuse' ( Wilson 1991 ), 'petty tyranny' ( Ashforth 1994 ), and 'incivility' ( Cortina 2001 ), are used. The term 'bullying' is now visible in the literature ( Vessey 2009 ), and 'mobbing' is also used when describing harassment or bullying of employees ( Einarsen 2000 ; Vandekerckhove 2003 ). In the context of the workplace, 'mobbing' can also indicate behaviour by a group of people against an individual, or as a synonym for bullying. In Australia, the most commonly used term is 'horizontal violence', which refers specifically to bullying by peers or colleagues at the same organisational level ( McKenna 2003 ). Occasionally, the term 'harassment' has been used interchangeably with bullying. A differentiation between bullying and harassment has been proposed by McMahon 2000 , who stated that bullying is abuse of power and this is the factor that differentiates harassment from bullying. It is important to note that there is legislation against 'harassment' within the United Kingdom (UK) and European law, which relates specifically to behaviour directed at individuals because of their colour, race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation ( European Foundation 2010 ). As noted above, the terms incivility and bullying are increasingly being used interchangeably. According to Namie 2003 visualising organisational disruption on a 10‐point continuum incivility is located between 1 and 3 and workplace bullying between 4 and 9. Clark 2011 developed a 'continuum of incivility' of unacceptable workplace behaviours, based primarily on interactions with work colleagues. They argue that incivility that goes unchallenged may be perceived as bullying.

Health‐service unions have classified bullying in the workplace as "humiliating an individual, especially in front of colleagues, picking on someone; belittling someone, undermining someone’s ability to do their job; and abusive or threatening behaviour" ( RCM 1996 ; Royal College of Nursing 2002 ; UNISON 1997 ). Major work in this area has been undertaken by Einarsen 2009 , with the result that work‐related, person‐related, and physical intimidation‐type behaviours have been incorporated into the Revised Negative Acts Questionnaire . However, some concerns have been raised about the limitations of a definitive list of bullying behaviours, as there are a number of ways in which bullying can manifest itself, and these are difficult to encapsulate in a single measure, even if the instrument has good validity and reliability ( Carponecchia 2011 ). Another issue of importance is the misconception that managers and supervisors are the sole perpetrators of bullying. There is evidence that employees can also bully managers ( Gillen 2008 ).

Schreurs 2010 argues that before bullying takes place, several antecedents need to be present. These have been identified in the literature as role conflict, role ambiguity, level of workload, and level of autonomy in the job ( Baillien 2009 ; Samnani 2012 ). Stress inherent in the job or the environment has also been named as a triggering factor ( Hauge 2007 ; Hauge 2009 ). Organisational change can also lead to bullying ( Skogstad 2007 ). This is manifest in situations where managers enforce change or conformity by bullying their employees ( Beale 2011 ; Vartia 1996 ). Gillen 2008 identified perception of the victim, an individual's locus of control, power, distance, and a permissive culture in the workplace as precursors to bullying. The workplace culture influences how employees behave towards one another ( Cleary 2009 ; Keashly 2010 ). Lutgen‐Sandvik 2014 argue that when bullying is not recognised and prevented, organisations will not meet their full potential. There is also evidence that employees emulate behaviour that they see in other colleagues, so that they can fit in with the workplace culture, thus coming to perceive bullying as normal ( Gillen 2007 ).

There is wide variation in the reporting and recording of bullying around the world. This may be due to a number of factors, such as: lack of clarity in definition, variation in time frames assigned by the researcher, problems with validity and reliability of measurement, and organisational culture and structures ( Zapf 2011 ). In the first study of workplace bullying in France, Neidhammer 2007 reported that 10% of the population studied had been exposed to bullying within the previous 12 months (N = 3132 men and 5562 women). A survey on working conditions by the European Foundation 2010 reported rates as high as 11% in Belgium and 10.7% in Luxemburg, and as low as 2.7% in Montenegro and 3% in Poland, in response to the question: "Have you been subjected to bullying or harassment in the last year?" It is clear that the criteria set by researchers, such as duration and frequency of bullying behaviour, invariably impact on the incidence levels recorded. Two studies of NHS Trust employees in the UK help to demonstrate this, with a prevalence of between 11% (self‐reported exposure to bullying in the preceding six months ( Hoel 2000 )), and 38% (exposure to one or more types of bullying behaviours during the previous year ( Quine 1999 )). More recently, in a cross‐sectional study by Carter 2013 , 20% of 2950 Health‐service staff reported having been bullied in the previous six months. However, other factors may also impact on these findings, such as workplace and gender ( Zapf 2011 ). Nielsen 2009 reported on a study of 2539 Norwegian employees, where the incidence of workplace bullying ranged from 2% to 14.3%, depending on how the behaviour was measured and frequency estimated. In the US, a 70% rate of exposure to bullying behaviour was recorded among registered nurses (N = 212), although a time criterion was not set by the researchers ( Vessey 2010 ). An Australian workplace project included responses from 5743 workers from six states and territories, and reported that 6.8% of respondents had experienced bullying in the last six months ( Safe Work Australia 2012 ).

The consequences of bullying have implications for the individual and the organisation. Berry 2012 reported the negative impact of bullying on novice nurses' ability to manage their workload. Generally, employees who have been bullied have lower levels of job satisfaction, higher levels of anxiety and depression, and are more likely to leave their job ( Ball 2002 ; Quine 2001 ; Vessey 2010 ). Tehrani 2004 noted that of the 67 healthcare professionals who they had identified as having been bullied, 44% were experiencing high levels of post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For the individual, the effects of bullying are considered to be more devastating than all other types of workplace stress put together ( Hogh 2011 ). Building on the work of Kivimäki 2003 , Nielsen 2012 suggested that early intervention was necessary to prevent bullying and subsequent psychological distress becoming a 'vicious circle' in which the victim of bullying becomes susceptible to more bullying. Indeed, prolonged exposure to workplace bullying has been identified as a key predictor of mental ill‐health five years later ( Einarsen 2015 ). The consequences for the organisation are most often reported in financial terms. A report commissioned by the Dignity at Work Partnership has estimated that the total cost of bullying for organisations in the UK in 2007 was approximately GBP 13.75 billion ( Giga 2008 ). In real terms, these costs arise from higher levels of sickness absence, recruitment costs associated with a propensity for staff to leave, and decreased productivity ( Johnson 2009 ). However, Beale 2011 has argued that some employers do not tackle bullying because they benefit from its existence in the workplace. They suggest that a certain level of bullying by managers in organisations is tolerated, as it is seen as an effective means of controlling the workforce.

It is clear that workplace bullying and its prevalence, manifestations, and consequences has been the subject of a growing body of research throughout the world. There are an increasing number of organisations that provide employee assistance programmes, including counselling, as a means of dealing with the consequences of bullying ( Tehrani 2011 ). Such management approaches are costly, deal with the aftermath of bullying, and have been largely ineffective, with high financial, individual, and organisational costs ( Hoel 2011 ). However, what is less clear are the measures that can be put in place before the onset of bullying. Simply put, prevention of bullying requires a proactive approach and management tends to be reactive and problem‐focused.

Description of the condition

Three attributes are commonly assigned to bullying: first, the behaviour is repeated (this excludes one‐off events or personal attacks); second, the bullying behaviour has a negative effect on the victim; and third, the victim finds it difficult to defend him or herself ( Einarsen 2011 ; Gillen 2007 ; Zapf 2011 ). There is also a fourth attribute, 'intent' of the bully, but as yet, there is no consensus about including it in definitions. Nevertheless, 'intent' is sometimes used to differentiate incivility from bullying. It has been suggested that incivility is unintentional and often circumstantial, such as a result of workplace pressures ( Clark 2011 ). Commonly ascribed definitions of bullying used by researchers at an international level include the identification of physical actions, disruptive, psychological behaviours, and acts of incivility ( Einarsen 1996 ; Einarsen 2011 ). Feblinger 2009 described various behaviours associated with incivility, similar to those listed in instruments that measure bullying ( Einarsen 2009 ; Gillen 2007 ).

Bullying has been defined as: “the often intentional, repeated, persistent, offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, abuse of power, or unfair penal sanctions against which the victim finds it difficult to defend him or herself. It has a negative effect on the recipient, which makes them feel upset, threatened, humiliated or vulnerable; undermines their self‐confidence; and which may cause them to suffer stress” ( Gillen 2008 ). This is similar to the Einarsen 2011 definition: "Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding someone, or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a particular activity, interaction or process it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g. weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months). Bullying is an escalating process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts. A conflict cannot be called bullying if the incident is an isolated event, or if two parties of approximately equal strength are in conflict". Although universally accepted, the Einarsen 2011 definition does not include reference to the negative effect of the bullying behaviour on the victim, i.e. that it causes stress, nor does it include reference to the issue of intent. We used the Einarsen 2011 definition of bullying in this review as it is more commonly known, and has been used extensively in research studies.

Description of the intervention

We considered all interventions within the workplace that were aimed at preventing bullying. Prevention of bullying can be more difficult to define (than bullying itself), as it may occur indirectly from other actions, such as achieving a positive workplace culture. Interventions may be targeted at individual employees, groups of employees, or organisations as a whole, and aim to prevent new cases of bullying or to prevent further instances of bullying of those who have already suffered from it. We used the levels of 'society/policy', 'organisation/employer', 'job/task' and 'Individual/job interface' to classify prevention interventions according to Vartia 2011 .

Interventions aimed at preventing bullying in the workplace may be internally derived and developed, but more often are influenced by local, national or international policy ( Leka 2008 ). According to Lamontagne 2007 interventions may be classified as primary (preventative), secondary (ameliorative), or tertiary (reactive). For the purpose of this review, we considered only primary interventions.

Vartia 2011 identified four different levels of bullying interventions as follows:

Society/policy

These interventions are normally law‐ or regulation‐based, with agreements of individual companies, for example, the Dignity at Work Partnership 2007 , or European Legislation, such as the Framework Agreement on Harassment and Violence at Work ( European Social Dialogue 2007 ). These set the standards of accepted behaviour, which are cascaded to employers who are actively encouraged to implement them.

Organisation/employer

These interventions are derived most often from law‐ or regulation‐based initiatives such as health and safety directives and the legislation described above. By definition, they are workplace‐specific and deal with the organisation's policy, aims, and expectations for the culture of the workplace, setting out clearly expected and agreed levels of behaviour. Such policies and procedures are often the first step that workplaces take when trying to influence workplace bullying ( Carponecchia 2011 ). These documents should clearly indicate the types of behaviour that are considered unacceptable and describe a reporting mechanism for those who perceive themselves to be 'bullied' ( Salin 2008b ). Pre‐intervention surveys may also be carried out to establish baseline levels. Although it should be remembered that reports of bullying often rise following the introduction of a new intervention. This is perhaps because workers are now more aware of what bullying is.

These interventions relate specifically to the job that employees are expected to do and the psychosocial environment in which they work. A risk assessment, including the identification of antecedents of bullying within the organisation, is used to inform a risk‐reduction intervention.

Individual/job interface

These interventions relate specifically to training, such as assertiveness training, or educational interventions aimed at altering behaviour or perception.

Interventions may operate at one or more of these levels. They may be targeted at individuals, in particular managers or supervisors, using a prevention perspective. They may focus on policy, procedures, and guidelines, or on locally designed and implemented education and training, which may be facilitated by occupational health departments.

How the intervention might work

Interventions to prevent workplace bullying may work by:

• strengthening the policies and culture of intolerance of bullying in the workplace by processes of engagement with employees;
• providing a safe environment within which mediation and negotiation may take place when problematic behaviour (not bullying) is first identified;
• undertaking risk assessments of job‐related precursors to bullying; and
• providing awareness‐raising or education sessions that will encourage employees to reconsider their behaviour and how they interact with colleagues.

Why it is important to do this review

Bullying has been shown to cause widespread emotional harm and distress ( Gillen 2008 ; Hogh 2011 ). It is viewed as a negative behaviour in the workplace that leads to increased absences, lower productivity ( Fisher‐Blando 2008 ), or continuing inability to work ( Hogh 2011 ). Mental health and well‐being issues are increasingly recognised as being responsible for employee absence and turnover. This is a crucial factor in recruiting and maintaining a healthy workforce, which is currently of particular importance in healthcare services in particular ( World Health Organization 2008 ), and in business in general, when organisations are attempting to keep costs low ( CIPD 2013 ). It was important to do this review in order to determine the effectiveness of interventions that currently exist to prevent bullying in the workplace. Prevention is important, as often the damage that is caused by bullying is difficult to undo, and has long‐term consequences on employees' health and well‐being ( Gillen 2012 ; Butterworth 2013 ).

To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to prevent bullying in the workplace.

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies.

We included all studies that evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to prevent bullying in the workplace (those targeted at individual employees, groups of employees, and organisations as a whole). We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cluster‐randomised controlled trials (cRCT) of person‐directed interventions. As it is more difficult to randomise whole companies or work units, we also included controlled before and after (CBA) studies and interrupted time‐series (ITS) studies of organisational interventions.

Types of participants

We included all studies where participants were employees in paid work within private, public, or voluntary organisations.

Types of interventions

We considered for inclusion all interventions aimed at primary prevention of bullying in the workplace. We excluded interventions that were focused on managing behaviours associated with bullying. Prevention is a proactive approach, which aims to reduce the incidence of bullying, while management of bullying is reactive in nature, often only responding when the detrimental impacts on individuals, groups of employees, and organisations are evident.

The interventions may have been targeted at an individual employee, a group of employees, or an organisation as a whole. We excluded interventions that were not clearly defined or that did not have a theoretical underpinning. We included studies that compared interventions with each other, with usual practice, or with no intervention. We also included interventions where groups acted as their own control. We classified included interventions according to the four levels identified by Vartia 2011 (see Description of the intervention ) where possible and as multilevel interventions when they engaged multiple levels. We included studies that reported:

• clearly stated aims for the implementation of interventions;
• clear and detailed description of the content and nature of the intervention that enabled the reader to fully understand it; and
• an explanation of the intervention's theoretical underpinnings.

We considered for inclusion all interventions aimed at individuals to prevent bullying by means of:

• informational or educational interventions aimed at altering behaviour or perception;
• organisational policy or incentives that discourage bullying;
• enhancements to reporting mechanisms that make it easier for individuals to report problematic behaviour: and
• health and safety policies that include identification of bullying as a risk.

We also considered for inclusion all interventions targeted at groups of employees or organisations as a whole to prevent bullying by means of:

• Informational or media campaigns to change policy;
• Incentives to change policy or encourage adherence to policies (either positive or negative); or
• Interventions that will alter the accepted culture of the organisation.

Types of outcome measures

Bullying is a complex phenomenon. Hence outcome measures should reflect that complexity. We included studies that used outcome measures related to prevention of workplace bullying, i.e. outcomes that showed a change in the number of reported cases of bullying perpetration, victimisation, or level of absenteeism. Self‐reported outcomes were taken in preference to secondary observations.

Primary outcomes

We included studies that reported on the number of cases of self‐reported bullying, whether recorded by perpetrator or victim. Hence we defined the primary outcome as the number of occurrences of bullying perpetration or victimisation, or both. Perpetration refers to a measurable act of bullying, while victimisation refers to recipients' reports of such action. We also accepted common synonyms such as mobbing and incivility and antonyms such as civility. We included dichotomous, categorical, integer and continuous measures of bullying.

Secondary outcomes

When included studies reported intervention effectiveness with consequential measures of bullying, namely stress, depression, absenteeism or sick leave, in addition to our primary outcome, we included these data.

We used only the primary outcomes as inclusion criteria. We used the secondary outcomes only to explain the findings of the primary outcomes because the included studies using our secondary outcomes are only a subset of all studies that reported our primary outcomes.

Search methods for identification of studies

We systematically searched for reports on the effectiveness of one or more interventions to prevent bullying in the workplace. The search strategy consisted of key words, including commonly used synonyms for bullying, the workplace setting, employees, and workplace interventions.

Electronic searches

We conducted a search in the following databases:

• The Cochrane Work Group Trials Register (August 2014; update search not undertaken as small number of papers were retrieved in the original search).
• The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, issue 1).
• PUBMED (1946 to January 2016).
• EMBASE (1980 to January 2016).
• PsycINFO (1967 to January 2016).
• Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Plus; 1937 to January 2016).
• Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA; 1987 to January 2016).
• ABI Global (earliest record to January 2016).
• International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS; 1951 to January 2016).
• Business Source Premier (BSP) (earliest record to January 2016).
• OpenGrey (Previously known as OpenSIGLE‐System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe; 1980 to December 2014; update search not undertaken as small number of papers retrieved in original search).

We used an initial strategy developed by the Cochrane Work Group's Information Specialist, outlined in Appendix 1 , which we adapted as required for each database. Our search focused primarily on titles and abstracts, with the aim of reducing the number of irrelevant articles retrieved. The Cochrane Work Group's Information Specialist and PG conducted the literature searches.

Searching other resources

Initially, we used a common online search engine to locate relevant websites to access otherwise unpublished material. We also searched the reference lists of all returned studies to identify potential additional studies. We also contacted experts in this area of research (frequently cited authors) to minimise potential studies being missed and to identify unpublished material that may be relevant. We also handsearched proceedings of conferences that focused on the issue of workplace bullying that we found during our database and website searches.

Selection of studies

We discarded all duplicate publications of studies. To identify potentially eligible studies, at least two review authors (PG and one other review author by rotation) screened all titles and abstracts. All authors (PG, MS, GK, CB, AL) undertook a calibration exercise to ensure consistency in selection of potentially eligible papers. Then two review authors (all authors were involved) independently read the abstracts and titles selected for possible inclusion. We screened the references without conferring, against the inclusion criteria. We only conferred once we had individually decided which papers should be included in the review. When a pair of authors could not agree, a third member of the review team arbitrated. We did not blind ourselves to authors, journal, or date of publication.

Data extraction and management

We designed a data extraction form based on forms developed for other Cochrane Work Group reviews. Two review authors extracted data using the agreed form (PG and one other review author by rotation). We resolved disagreements through discussion with at least one other review author. We filed all studies that had data extracted along with the data extraction forms for the purpose of an audit trail. One review author (PG) transferred all data into RevMan 5.3 ( RevMan 2014 ), and another review author (GK) checked the accuracy of the data transfer.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

For randomised controlled trials, three review authors (PG, MS, GK) independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies according to the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions ( Higgins 2011 ).

For non‐randomised designs, we adapted the approach advocated by Downs 1998 , and supported by Deeks 2003 . We based our assessment of risk of bias solely on the two internal validity scales consisting of 13 items, as they were the most appropriate in this case ( Verbeek 2012 ). In order to report the ROB outcome in RevMan 2014 , we had to adapt the scoring slightly. Instead of using scores 1 or 0 we assessed each item as 'high risk', 'low risk', or 'unclear risk', depending on the study information provided. We independently assessed the internal validity of studies using the Downs 1998 Checklist. For the non‐randomised studies allocation concealment is not applicable so we judged them to have a high risk of bias. Pairs of review authors independently examined the risk of bias of the included studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion.

Measures of treatment effect

We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and means and standard deviations (SD) for continuous outcomes. When the results could not be entered in the data tables, we described them in the Characteristics of included studies and in the text.

We did not identify any interrupted time‐series studies (ITS) that met our inclusion criteria. If these are included in future versions of the review, we will extract data from the original papers and re‐analyse them according to the recommended methods for analysis of ITS designs for inclusion in systematic reviews ( Ramsay 2003 ).

Unit of analysis issues

Although the included studies' interventions operated in very different ways, they all worked at the level of the individual, that is, aiming to achieve individual outcomes to reduce the level of victimisation, perpetration, or both. Hence the unit of analysis was the individual. One study was a cluster‐randomised trial but it reported insufficient data to assess the cluster effect. If future updates of this review find cluster‐randomised studies that report sufficient data to be included in the meta‐analysis, but the authors do not make an allowance for the design effect, we will calculate the design effect based on a fairly large assumed intra‐cluster correlation of 0.10. We base the assumption that 0.10 is a realistic estimate on studies about implementation research ( Campbell 2001 ). We will follow the methods stated in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the calculations ( Higgins 2011 ).

Dealing with missing data

We contacted the authors of three of the studies included in this review. For the McGrath 2010 study, we clarified whether the participants were in paid work. We also contacted one of the authors of the Hoel 2006 study to seek clarification on the process of randomisation and to ask for data in a format that could be more easily included in the analysis. However, we did not receive a response. In addition, communication with Leiter 2011 provided clarification on data from their multivariate analysis.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We could combine results data from different studies in a meta‐analysis for just one comparison. Hence we needed to assess heterogeneity between just two studies ( Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ). If more studies are included in future versions of the review, we will group them based on similar study designs, interventions, and outcome measures. We will test for statistical heterogeneity by means of the Chi² test as calculated in Review Manager 5.3 software ( RevMan 2014 ). We will use a significance level of P < 0.01 to indicate whether or not there is a problem with heterogeneity. Moreover, we will quantify the degree of heterogeneity using the I² statistic, where an I² value of 0% to 40% may be not important, 30% to 60% may represent important heterogeneity, 50% to 90% may indicate substantial heterogeneity and over 75% to indicate considerable heterogeneity ( Higgins 2003 ).

Assessment of reporting biases

We assessed reporting biases based on publication, time lag, location and language as recommended by Higgins 2011 and looked for signs of reporting biases within articles by checking that all stated outcomes had been reported. We prevented location bias by searching across multiple databases. We prevented language bias by including all eligible articles regardless of publication language.

Data synthesis

We pooled data from two studies judged to be clinically homogeneous (similar intervention, research design and outcome) in a meta‐analysis using Review Manager 5.3 software ( RevMan 2014 ). Because these studies were statistically heterogeneous, we used a random‐effects model. Should we identify more statistically homogeneous studies to include in meta‐analyses in future updates of this review we will use a fixed‐effect model. We conducted a sensitivity check by using the fixed‐effect model to reveal differences in results. We included a 95% confidence interval (CI) for all effect estimates.

Should we find ITS studies in future updates, we will use the standardised change in level and change in slope as effect measures. We will perform meta‐analyses using the generic inverse variance method. We will enter the standardised outcomes into Review Manager 5.3 as effect sizes, along with their standard errors (SEs).

Quality of the evidence

We used the GRADE approach, as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and GRADEproGDT software to present the quality of evidence in ‘Summary of findings’ tables ( Higgins 2011 ). The quality of a body of evidence for a specific outcome is based on five factors: 1) limitations of the study designs; 2) indirectness of evidence; 3) inconsistency of results; 4) imprecision of results; and 5) publication bias.

The GRADE approach specifies four levels of quality (high, moderate, low and very low), incorporating the factors noted above. Quality of evidence by GRADE should be interpreted as follows:

• High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
• Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different;
• Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect;
• Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

Given the paucity of studies included in this review, we could not perform subgroup analyses. In future updates, if there are sufficient data, we will undertake subgroup analyses based on gender, occupation, type of intervention for prevention, type of organisation, location (country of origin), as well as type and duration of interventions.

Sensitivity analysis

We did not find a sufficient number of studies to permit us to conduct sensitivity analyses, that is, to test if our findings were affected by the choice of studies included in analyses. If we have sufficient studies in future updates, we will conduct sensitivity analyses in which we exclude studies we judge to have a high or unclear risk of bias.

Description of studies

Results of the search.

Our systematic search generated 19,544 references ( Figure 1 ). We identified 125 references that we considered potentially eligible for inclusion and accessed the full text articles. Following further scrutiny, we excluded 86 of these. We read the remaining 39 in greater detail and we excluded 34 as they did not meet our inclusion criteria. Five studies ( Hoel 2006 ; Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ) met the inclusion criteria for this review.

PRISMA Study flow diagram.

Included studies

Each of the included studies reported on at least one intervention that was clearly defined or had a clear theoretical underpinning. See Characteristics of included studies .

Study Design

Of the five included studies, one was a cluster‐RCT (cRCT) ( Hoel 2006 ), and the other four were CBA studies ( Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ).

Two CBA studies used a group intervention with surveys before and after the delivery of the intervention ( Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ). One of these was followed‐up at 12 months and reported separately ( Leiter 2011 ). One other CBA study compared reported levels of incivility, perpetration, and victimisation before and after the intervention ( Kirk 2011 ). In another CBA study, victimisation and bullying behaviour were measured at three time points, one before and two after intervention ( McGrath 2010 ).

In the cRCT, clusters were randomly allocated to four different bullying intervention programmes or a control condition.

Setting and participants

One study was carried out with a large healthcare organisation with employees dispersed across Canada ( Leiter 2011 ; N = 907), and another with five organisations with employees across several US states ( Osatuke 2009 ; N = 2062).

In Hoel 2006 , the 1041 participants were employees from five public sector organisations in the UK: three NHS trusts (one focused specifically on mental health), one civil service department, and one police force).

The Kirk 2011 study was carried out in Australia. Of the 46 participants 48% were in managerial or professional positions, 15% were employed psychology students, and details of the remaining participants' employment were not given.

The McGrath 2010 study was carried out in Ireland. The 60 participants were adults with a borderline, mild, or moderate learning disability, based in a work centre. We contacted the authors of the paper to determine whether or not the participants in this study were paid for the work. The authors responded that the participants received 'therapeutic earnings' but not enough to affect their benefits. We decided that while these participants could not be considered to be representative of most paid workers, they did meet the inclusion criteria for this review.

The five included studies had altogether 4116 participants.

Interventions

All included studies took account of background literature about bullying and how to prevent it. Two studies were conducted within a framework for Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workforce (CREW; Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ). One study was clearly informed by the intervention literature especially when it comes to the design of the intervention programme, the need to account for organisational context, and to include employee participation ( Hoel 2006 ). The expressive writing intervention was based on the theory of self‐efficacy and the demonstrated potential for behaviour change that may result from 'poor emotional processing' ( Kirk 2011 ). The final included intervention was based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which is suitable for effecting behaviour change ( McGrath 2010 ). According to the authors their intervention was based on "...other‐bullying programs, anger management programs and relaxation training programs adapted to meet the needs of adults with a learning disability".

Society/policy level interventions

None of the included studies reported on interventions at the society/policy level.

Organisation/employer level interventions

Two studies reported on the effectiveness of a culture change intervention, which was intended to address Civility, Respect and Engagement at Work (CREW) at the organisational or employer level ( Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ). The core elements of the CREW intervention are included in the Characteristics of included studies . This was a substantial intervention, demanding organisational commitment to a process that lasted longer than six months.

Job/task level interventions

None of the included studies reported on interventions aimed solely at the job/task level.

One study described the effects of an educational programme that included a three‐hour negative behaviour awareness intervention on acceptable and unacceptable behaviours within the workplace ( Hoel 2006 ). We judged the intervention to operate at the individual/job interface level.

One study used an educational intervention aimed at enhancing self‐efficacy to reduce workplace incivility victimisation and perpetration through a self‐administered writing intervention, which was completed by participants over a three‐day period ( Kirk 2011 ). The control group completed a sham writing task.

One study described a cognitive‐behavioural educational intervention developed from other unstipulated bullying, anger management and relaxation programmes, which was adapted to meet the needs of adults with a learning disability ( McGrath 2010 ). The intervention lasted 90 minutes and was delivered once a week, at the same time each week, for ten weeks. The intervention included information on bullying and its consequences, raised awareness of personal triggers, and taught participants ways to deal with bullying. The intervention was directed at bullies, victims, and bystanders (those who had witnessed bullying of others).

One study described an educational intervention programme operating at three levels: organisation/employer level, job/task and individual/job interface levels ( Hoel 2006 ). The programme was comprised of three intervention components: policy communication, stress management, and negative behaviour awareness training. These were implemented in various combinations that always included policy communication which we judged to operate at the organisation or employer level. We judged the stress awareness session to operate at the job/task level, whilst we judged the negative behaviour component of the programme to operate at the individual/job interface level.

Studies used several outcomes to establish the effectiveness of interventions that were aimed at preventing bullying in the workplace.

Bullying victimisation was measured in all of the included studies. Two studies measured bullying victimisation through self‐report questionnaire ( Hoel 2006 ) or interview ( McGrath 2010 ).

The studies by Kirk 2011 and Leiter 2011 recorded experiences of incivility. Kirk 2011 defined incivility as "discourteous interactions between employees that violate norms of mutual respect. Such behaviour can involve expression of hostility, privacy invasion, exclusionary behaviour, and gossiping". The study by Leiter 2011 reported extending previous work and used a similar pre‐existing definition of incivility. We regarded the behaviours covered by this definition as common bullying behaviours.

Two studies reported on experiences of civility ( Osatuke 2009 ; Leiter 2011 ) using a five‐point Likert type scale that averaged the answers on eight questions concerning respect, cooperation, conflict resolution, co‐worker personal interest, co‐worker reliability, anti‐discrimination, value differences, and supervisor diversity acceptance. We regarded these behaviours as the inverse of incivility and therefore an indirect measure of bullying victimisation. The scale scores ranged from one to five.

In both Leiter 2011 and Osatuke 2009 there were differences in baseline scores between the intervention and the control group. Both studies used a multivariate linear regression analysis for taking these differences into account. We used the betas from the regression analyses as the mean differences of the change values and the associated standard errors (SE). For Leiter 2011, we received the Standard Errors (SE) belonging to the betas on request from the authors. For Osatuke 2009, we calculated SE using beta divided by the square root of the reported F‐value.

Bullying perpetration was measured in four of the included studies. Two studies measured bullying perpetration through self‐report questionnaire ( Hoel 2006 ) or interview ( McGrath 2010 ). We regarded the incivility measures reported as incivility perpetration ( Kirk 2011 ) and instigated incivility ( Leiter 2011 ) as bullying perpetration.

In addition to reporting intervention effects on one or more of our primary outcomes, two studies reported intervention effects on absenteeism from work ( Hoel 2006 ; Leiter 2011 ). Leiter 2011 reported absenteeism using self‐report and 'aggregate institutional data' and Hoel 2006 used self‐reports to measure time off work. We did not identify the secondary outcomes stress or depression in any of the included studies.

Follow‐up

Follow‐up ranged from two weeks ( Kirk 2011 ) to 12 months or longer. Commonly, longer interventions were associated with longer follow‐up, from three to six months ( Hoel 2006 ; McGrath 2010 ), to 11‐14 months for culture change interventions ( Osatuke 2009 ; Leiter 2011 ). Longer follow‐up was associated with greater loss of participants.

Excluded studies

There is considerable literature on workplace bullying, most of it focused on the nature, manifestations, consequences, and management. This is reflected in the number of papers that we initially found ( Figure 1 ) and subsequently excluded. We screened and excluded 86 full‐text papers.

Twelve papers were literature reviews ( Bartlett, 2011 ; Beech 2006 ; Branch 2013 ; Carroll 2012 ; Dollard 2007 ; Hodgins 2014 ; Hutchinson 2013 ; Illing 2013 ; Johnson 2009 ; Stagg 2010 ; Vessey 2010 ; Wassell 2009 ).

Nine papers reported on the implementation or proposed application of anti‐bullying policies or strategies but did not include testing of their effectiveness ( Bulutlar 2009 ; Duffy 2009 ; Hollins 2010 ; Leka 2011 ; Meglich‐Sespico 2007 ; Ng 2010 ; Rasmussen, 2011 ; Sheehan 1999 ; Srabstein 2008 ).

Thirteen papers were surveys and reported on the frequency and nature of bullying behaviour, its impact and outcomes ( Baillien 2009 ; Duncan 2001 ; Hogh 2011 ; Mangione 2001 ; O'Driscoll 1999 ; Oluremi 2007 ; Salin 2008a ; Salin 2008b ; Spector 2007 ; van Heughten 2010 ; Vessey 2010 ; Walrafen 2012 ), or on the impact of leadership style on frequency of bullying ( Nielsen 2013 ).

Six papers focused on the management of workplace bullying ( Appelbaum 2012 ; Bentley 2012 ; Gardner 2001 ; Kahl 2007 ; Speery 2009 ; Steen 2011 ), and three on interventions with school children ( Dawn 2006 ; Farrington 2009 ; Halleck 2008 ).

Eleven papers focused on theoretical frameworks or models but did not include an intervention ( Baillien 2011a ; Djurkovic 2006 ; Djurkovic 2008 ; Johnson 2011 ; Laschinger 2012 ; Law 2011 ; Nielsen 2008 ; Olender‐Russo 2009 ; Ramsay 2011 ; Saam 2010 ; Schat 2000 ).

Two papers reported on case studies ( Lippel 2011 ; Namie 2009 ), one reported on a trial in a court of law ( Weber 2009 ), and one reported on the use of a participatory theatre action research approach to deal with bullying ( Quinlan 2009 ).

Twenty papers were opinion papers ( Al‐Daraji 2009 ; Christmas 2007 ; Cleary 2010 ; Dal Pezzo 2009 ; DelBel 2003 ; Egues 2013 ; Farrell 2007 ; Gerardi 2007 ; Gilmore 2006 ; Hubert 2003 ; Kolanko 2006 ; Longo 2007 ; Lutgen‐Sandvik 2012 ; Mahlmeister 2009 ; Namie 2004 ; Rayner 1999 ; Resch 1996 ; Shreeavtar 2002 ; Tehrani 1995 ; Yamada 2009 ), seven focused on workplace violence directed at healthcare workers by patients ( Arnetz 2000 ; Carter 1997 ; Farrell 2005 ; Molloy 2006 ; Viitasara 2004 ; Voelker 1996 ; Zampeiron 2010 ), and one study focused on assertiveness training for nurses but did not have a control group ( Karakas 2015 ).

We subjected the remaining 37 potentially eligible papers to a more detailed review against the inclusion criteria, and subsequently excluded all of them because their study design did not meet our inclusion criteria, primarily due to lack of control ( Barrett 2009 ; Beirne 2013 ; Bortoluzzi 2014 ; Bourbonnais 2006a ; Brunges 2014 ; Ceravolo 2012 ; Chipps 2012 ; Collette 2004 ; Cooper‐Thomas 2013 ; Crawford 1999 ; Egues 2014 ; Feda 2010 ; Gedro 2013 ; Gilbert 2013 ; Grenyer 2004 ; Griffin 2004 ; Holme 2006 ; Karakas 2015 ; Lasater 2015 ; Latham 2008 ; Leiter 2011 ; Longo 2011 ; Léon‐Pérez 2012 ; Mallette 2011 ; Meloni 2011 ; Melwani 2011 ; Mikkelsen 2011 ; Nikstatis 2014 ; Oostrom 2008 ; Osatuke 2009 ; Pate 2010 ; Probst 2008 ; Stagg 2011 ; Stevens 2002 ; Strandmark 2014 ; Wagner 2012 ; Woodrow 2014 ).

Further details of these studies are presented in the Characteristics of excluded studies table.

Risk of bias in included studies

We provide an overview of our risk of bias judgements across studies in Figure 2 and per study in Figure 3 .

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies using the Downs 1998 checklist.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for included studies.

Blinding of subjects and outcome assessors was not evident in any of these studies. Therefore we judged all studies to have a high risk of bias in both domains.

Retrospective unplanned subgroup analyses

We did not find evidence of data dredging or additional retrospective unplanned subgroup analyses. Therefore we judged all studies to have a low risk of bias in this domain.

There was wide variation in follow‐up with Kirk 2011 using only two weeks, McGrath 2010 using three months, Hoel 2006 using approximately six months, Leiter 2011 using 12 to 24 months. Pre‐ and post‐intervention matching was reported to be difficult. Furthermore, Osatuke 2009 reported a 'chronological mismatch' between the comparison and intervention groups. We calculated their follow‐up to be 11 to 14 months. We judged Leiter 2011 and McGrath 2010 to have a low risk of bias and the remaining three to have an unclear risk of bias in this domain.

Statistical tests

We judged statistical tests to be clearly described and appropriately applied in almost all cases. We found that Hoel 2006 failed to clarify in sufficient detail the main effects of the intervention. Other authors reported descriptive statistics and analysis of variance. Accordingly we judged Hoel 2006 to have an unclear risk of bias and all other studies to have a low risk of bias in this domain.

We found a wide variation with compliance across the range of interventions. We judged the resulting risk of bias to be unclear for the educational intervention ( Hoel 2006 ), and low for the expressive writing and cognitive behavioural intervention ( Kirk 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ). Due to lack of data on compliance, we judged risk of bias for the CREW Intervention to be unclear ( Osatuke 2009 ; Leiter 2011 ).

Outcome measures

The very nature of workplace bullying and its assessment pre‐ and post‐intervention is complex and we judged outcome measurement to be at high risk of bias in two studies ( Hoel 2006 ; McGrath 2010 ) and unclear in three ( Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ). We judged the risk of bias for all of the outcome measures to be affected by the use of self‐report. This is because the sensitivity and stigma associated with perpetrating or experiencing bullying has an intrinsic risk of bias due to social desirability. Self‐reported measures are therefore likely to be biased against reporting true levels. On the other hand, investigators in raising the topic will increase awareness and create bias in the other direction (Hawthorne effect). We judged all of the studies to be susceptible to these latent risks of bias.

Selection bias (population)

One study was drawn from a well‐defined population ( McGrath 2010 ) and we judged it to be at low risk of selection bias. Three studies were drawn from disparate healthcare workplaces and we judged them to have an unclear risk of bias ( Hoel 2006 ; Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ). The remaining study used a convenience sample of employees from a variety of unspecified workplaces and we judged it to be at high risk of bias ( Kirk 2011 ).

Selection bias (time)

We judged four studies to have a low risk of selection bias with regard to the time frame for recruitment ( Hoel 2006 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ). We judged the study by Kirk 2011 to have an unclear risk of bias because we were unable to determine the time frame.

Randomisation

We judged four studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of randomisation ( Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ). We judged the single cluster‐randomised trial to be at low risk of bias ( Hoel 2006 ).

Allocation concealment

We judged four controlled before‐after studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of allocation concealment ( Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ). We judged the single cRCT to have an unclear risk of bias on this domain because the study did not report having concealed allocation ( Hoel 2006 ).

Adjustment for confounding

One study described relevant confounders ( Hoel 2006 ). However, we found no evidence of adjustment in the statistical analysis and this lead to our judgement of high risk of bias due to confounding. We were unable to identify confounders in the other four studies ( Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ) and therefore we judged them all to have a high risk of bias due to confounding.

Incomplete outcome data

Details on participant loss to follow‐up was provided in two studies and we deemed them to be at low risk of bias ( Kirk 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ). Three studies by Hoel 2006 ; Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 reported numbers of participants lost to follow‐up but we were unable to determine whether this had been taken into account in analyses. Consequently, we judged them to be at unclear risk of bias.

Overall risk of bias

We judged all five included studies to have a high risk of bias overall based on: lack of blinding of subjects and outcomes assessors ( Hoel 2006 ; Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ), unreliable outcome measures ( Hoel 2006 ; McGrath 2010 ), selection bias ( Kirk 2011 ), lack of randomisation ( Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ), open allocation ( Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ) and lack of adjustment for confounding ( Hoel 2006 ; Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ). See Figure 3 for a summary of our judgements about each risk of bias for each included study.

Effects of interventions

See: Table 1 ; Table 2 ; Table 3 ; Table 4

Summary of findings for the main comparison

1 We would have downgraded the quality of evidence twice due to high risk of bias caused by study limitations (lack of randomisation and blinding, and use of self‐reporting instrument) and once due to imprecision (limited sample available for outcome measurement, limited matching pre‐ and post intervention). However, once was enough to reach very low quality evidence as we started at low quality evidence because the included studies used a controlled before‐after design. We found no reason to upgrade the quality of the evidence.

Summary of findings 2

1 We would have downgraded the quality of evidence once due to high risk of bias caused by study limitations (lack of blinding and use of self‐reporting instrument) and twice due to imprecision (study conducted in mixed settings and with unclear number of participants). However, once was enough to reach very low quality evidence as we started at low quality evidence because the included studies used a controlled before‐after design. We found no reason to upgrade the quality of the evidence.

Summary of findings 3

1. We would have downgraded the quality of evidence twice due to high risk of bias caused by study limitations (lack of randomisation and blinding, and use of self‐reporting instrument) and once due to imprecision (small sample size). However once was enough to reach very low quality evidence as we started at low quality evidence because the included studies used a controlled before‐after design. We found no reason to upgrade the quality of the evidence.

Summary of findings 4

1. We would have downgraded the quality of evidence twice due to high risk of bias caused by study limitations (lack of randomisation and blinding, and use of self‐reporting instrument) and once due to imprecision (small sample size). However, once was enough to reach very low quality evidence as we started at low quality evidence because the included studies used a controlled before‐after design. We found no reason to upgrade the quality of the evidence.

See: Table 1 ; Table 2 ; Table 3 ; Table 4 .

Society/policy level

None of the included studies reported on the effects of interventions at the society/policy level.

Organisational/employer level

Workplace culture intervention versus no intervention, effects on bullying in general.

Two controlled before‐after studies reported on the effects on civility of the same organisational Intervention titled Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workforce ( Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ). In the meta‐analysis of the two studies, the CREW intervention produced a small increase in civility at a follow‐up time between 6 and 14 months (Mean Difference (MD) 0.17 95% CI 0.07 to 0.28; scale range from 1 to 5; Analysis 1.1 ; 2 studies).

Comparison 1 CREW intervention vs no intervention, Outcome 1 Self‐reported civility.

Effects on bullying perpetration

Leiter 2011 reported a small reduction in co‐worker incivility (MD ‐0.08; 95% CI ‐0.22, to 0.06; scale range from 1 to 6; Analysis 1.2 ; 1 study), and a small non‐significant reduction in supervisor incivility (MD ‐0.17; 95% CI ‐0.33 to ‐0.01; Analysis 1.3 ; 1 study) at the 6‐month follow‐up ( Leiter 2011 ). The CREW intervention also produced a small non‐significant reduction in the frequency of incivility perpetration (MD ‐0.05; 95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.05; scale range from 1 to 6; Analysis 1.4 ; 1 study).

Comparison 1 CREW intervention vs no intervention, Outcome 2 Self‐reported co‐worker incivility.

Comparison 1 CREW intervention vs no intervention, Outcome 3 Self‐reported supervisor incivility.

Comparison 1 CREW intervention vs no intervention, Outcome 4 Self‐reported frequency of incivility perpetration.

Effects on secondary outcomes

Leiter 2011 reported a reduction in absenteeism during the previous month (MD ‐0.63 days per month; 95% CI ‐0.92 to ‐0.34); Analysis 1.5 ; 1 study) at 6‐month follow‐up.

Comparison 1 CREW intervention vs no intervention, Outcome 5 Self‐reported absenteeism in previous month.

We rated the overall quality of evidence about the effectiveness of the CREW intervention as very low ( Table 1 ).

Job/task level

None of the included studies reported uniquely on the effects of interventions at the job/task level, although one multilevel study incorporated one intervention at this level ( Hoel 2006 ). We were unable to determine the effect of this intervention specifically at the job/task level.

Individual/job interface level

Expressive writing intervention versus control writing, effects on bullying victimisation.

A controlled before‐after study reported results of an expressive writing intervention ( Kirk 2011 ) taking account of baseline scores. The authors found that the expressive writing intervention reduced incivility victimisation for participants who initially scored low (MD ‐5.74; 95% CI ‐9.88 to ‐1.60; Analysis 2.1 ) and moderate (MD ‐3.44; 95% CI ‐6.51 to ‐0.37; Analysis 2.2 ) on the incivility victimisation pre‐test. The expressive writing intervention had no significant effect on incivility victimisation with participants with high scores on the pre‐test (MD ‐0.73; 95% CI ‐4.23 to 2.77; Analysis 2.3 ) nor when we pooled the data (MD ‐3.30; 95% CI ‐6.89 to 0.29) ( Analysis 2.4 ).

Comparison 2 Expressive writing vs. control writing, Outcome 1 Incivility victimisation (25th percentile pre‐test).

Comparison 2 Expressive writing vs. control writing, Outcome 2 Incivility victimisation (50th percentile pre‐test).

Comparison 2 Expressive writing vs. control writing, Outcome 3 Incivility victimisation (75th percentile pre‐test).

Comparison 2 Expressive writing vs. control writing, Outcome 4 Incivility victimisation (pooled).

After controlling for pre‐test scores, participants in the expressive writing intervention arm scored significantly lower on workplace incivility perpetration than participants in the control writing arm in one study ( Kirk 2011 ) (MD ‐3.52; 95% CI ‐6.24 to ‐0.80; Analysis 2.5 ).

Comparison 2 Expressive writing vs. control writing, Outcome 5 Incivility perpetration.

This study did not report effects on absenteeism.

We rated the overall quality of evidence about the expressive writing intervention as very low ( Table 3 ).

Cognitive‐behavioural intervention versus no intervention

A controlled before‐after study reported results of a cognitive‐behavioural intervention ( McGrath 2010 ). The authors evaluated the intervention's effectiveness using the number of people who reported they had been victims of bullying. The authors took measurements at baseline, following completion of the intervention, and at three months post‐intervention. The likelihood of being bullied was similar at baseline across the intervention and control groups. Following the intervention, there was no significant difference in the risk of being bullied (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.55; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.25; Analysis 3.1 ), and there was no change at three‐month follow‐up (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.15; Analysis 3.1 ).

Comparison 3 Cognitive Behavioural intervention vs. no intervention, Outcome 1 Victimisation.

The risk of bullying others was not significantly lower following the intervention (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.54; Analysis 3.2 ), or at the three‐month follow‐up (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.81; Analysis 3.2 ). However, the wide confidence interval and the small sample size leaves a lot of uncertainty about the true effect.

Comparison 3 Cognitive Behavioural intervention vs. no intervention, Outcome 2 Perpetration.

We rated the overall quality of evidence about the cognitive‐behavioural intervention as very low ( Table 4 ).

Multilevel Intervention

Effects on primary outcomes.

A five‐arm cluster‐randomised controlled study of three interventions in different combinations, using a partial factorial design, conducted at five sites, reported outcomes as percentages with small non‐significant changes post‐intervention ( Hoel 2006 ). Trends in the data were difficult to see as the authors report increases and decreases in outcomes separately for all five settings. Of the 1041 participants who completed the pre‐intervention survey, only 150 employees completed the training intervention. We wrote to the authors requesting access to their raw data so that we could have conducted our own analysis but received no response.

The authors found no effect on self‐reported absenteeism.

We rated the overall quality of evidence about the multilevel intervention as very low ( Table 2 ).

Summary of main results

None of the included studies explored the effectiveness of interventions at society/policy‐level.

We found two large CBA studies with 2969 participants that evaluated organisational/employer level interventions. These studies evaluated the effectiveness of a workplace culture intervention to achieve Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workforce (CREW) ( Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ). The meta‐analysis of the two studies showed a small increase in civility (MD 0.17; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.28). This is a 5% increase from the baseline score. One of the two studies reported that the CREW intervention produced a small decrease in supervisor incivility victimisation (MD ‐0.17; 95% CI ‐0.33 to ‐0.01) but not in co‐worker incivility victimisation (MD ‐0.08; 95% CI ‐0.22 to 0.08) or in self‐reported incivility perpetration (MD ‐0.05 95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.05). The study did find a decrease in the number of days absent during the previous month (MD ‐0.63; 95% CI ‐0.92 to ‐0.34) at 6‐month follow‐up.

At the individual/job interface level, we found evidence from one study comparing an expressive writing intervention with a control writing exercise ( Kirk 2011 ). After controlling for pre‐test scores, participants in the intervention arm scored significantly lower on workplace incivility perpetration (MD ‐3.52; 95% CI ‐6.24 to ‐0.80). There was no difference in bullying measured as incivility victimisation (MD ‐3.30 95% CI ‐6.89 to 0.29). Another controlled before‐after study with 60 participants who had a learning disability, compared a cognitive‐behavioural intervention with no intervention ( McGrath 2010 ). There was no significant difference in bullying victimisation after the intervention (risk ratio (RR) 0.55; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.25), or at the three‐month follow‐up (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.15), nor was there a significant difference in bullying perpetration following the intervention (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.54), or at the three‐month follow‐up (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.81).

Although none of the included studies explored the effectiveness of interventions solely at job/task‐level, we found one multilevel intervention that had addressed this level in addition to the organisation/employer level and the individual/job interface levels. This was a five‐site cluster‐RCT with 1041 participants that compared the effectiveness of different combinations of policy communication, stress management training, and negative behaviours awareness training ( Hoel 2006 ). The authors reported that their intervention did not yield a significant effect but we cannot confirm this as the study authors report insufficient data.

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

We found five studies providing evidence of the effectiveness of bullying prevention interventions aimed at individuals and groups or organisations. However, we did not find all predicted bullying intervention types, such as at the level of society/policy. Four studies employed a CBA design and one used a cluster‐randomised controlled trial design. All the included studies had been conducted in high‐income countries: Australia, Ireland, North America, and the UK. The participants were diverse, ranging from healthcare workers ( Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ); employees from public sector organisations ( Hoel 2006 ); and unspecified employees ( Kirk 2011 ), to adults with a learning disability employed in a work centre ( McGrath 2010 ). Whilst previous studies have shown that bullying predominates in the healthcare, education and public services professions ( Namie 2003 ), we did not find studies that evaluated interventions among teachers or other public service workers. We found no studies conducted in lower and middle income countries.

We did not find any studies that had evaluated the effectiveness of bullying prevention interventions on our secondary outcomes stress, depression, or sick leave.

We found three studies that focused on education ( Hoel 2006 ; Kirk 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ) and two that we categorised as culture‐change projects ( Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ). One study covered three intervention levels but we found no programmes of interventions that covered all four levels as defined by Vartia 2011 (see Description of the intervention ). Although all included studies reported the demographic details of participants, none of them used any of these demographic factors as potential explanatory variables.

The follow‐up times for all but one study were relatively short, ranging from two weeks to 14 months.

We assessed the overall quality of the evidence provided by the included studies to be very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence due to high risk of bias caused by study limitations (lack of randomisation and blinding, and use of self‐reporting instruments) and imprecision (limited sample available for outcome measurement). Where large populations were involved, studies used variable subsets of these populations with little consistency before and after the intervention. We were able to combine the results of two studies using the same outcome measurement in a meta‐analysis. We found no reason to downgrade the quality of evidence due to indirectness as all included studies measured bullying or incivility. Due to the small number of included studies, it was not possible to assess publication bias. Only one of the five included studies was a cluster‐randomised trial ( Hoel 2006 ). The other four included studies used a less rigorous CBA design ( Kirk 2011 ; Leiter 2011 ; McGrath 2010 ; Osatuke 2009 ). One of the five included studies reported too little data for secondary analysis ( Hoel 2006 ). Blinding and allocation concealment was not possible for participants or outcome assessors in any of the studies. Outcome measures were wholly self‐reported, although using valid and reliable instruments. The small number of included studies and the wide range of interventions in terms of both level and type means that individual study results were unverified except for the CREW intervention.

The overall outcome of very low quality evidence underlines the fact that there is substantial room for improvement in future studies.

Potential biases in the review process

We used a very broad search strategy to ensure that all intervention types, all synonyms for workplace bullying, and all employees were included. We ran the search in a wide range of electronic reference databases and set no language limitations. We also conducted a trawl of websites that focus on bullying in the workplace. In addition, we contacted a number of cited authors to increase the likelihood of finding all relevant studies. We also set up email search alerts with Zetoc and the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases. Altogether, this resulted in a large number of references (19,544) to be screened for inclusion. Given more high‐quality primary research, it may be possible to further refine our inclusion criteria and thereby increase the precision of the search. In any case, we are fairly certain that we have not missed any published studies that would have met our inclusion criteria and should have been included.

In drawing the evidence together, we accepted a range of terms describing the outcome of bullying prevention interventions. We included bullying perpetration, bullying victimisation, incivility victimisation, incivility perpetration, experienced incivility, incivility instigation and civility as primary outcome measures. We assumed these terms to be sufficiently similar to represent a form of bullying or its inverse in the case of civility. This range demonstrates the current lack of agreed definition for outcome measures and associated potential for bias, especially where meaning varies along a continuum of organisational disruption or unacceptable work behaviours.

We were able to report only limited findings from the Hoel 2006 study due to the way in which the authors presented their results. Although we contacted the author to obtain raw data in order to conduct our own analyses, we did not receive a response.

We included studies using self‐reported outcome measurement scales despite the potential risk of bias, namely from social desirability in response to a sensitive topic. Self‐report, even when anonymised may lead to less reporting of bullying perpetration and bullying victimisation; neither of which are socially desirable. This might have affected the results of the interventions, particularly those that used a no‐intervention control group. This is less likely to have occurred in the Kirk 2011 study that used an active control. In addition, for the CREW intervention the effects were measured in several different ways and were supported by a decrease in absenteeism. Hence, the inclusion of evidence based on self‐report did not affect our conclusions adversely.

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

Our search retrieved 12 reviews related to bullying in the workplace. Following close inspection, we considered four of them to be focused on prevention of bullying in the workplace.

Stagg 2010 identified best practices from 10 studies that aimed to prevent and manage workplace bullying and violence. The authors included school‐based studies, a mentor‐mentee programme, a survey of students and employees, a study that focused on the development of a personal plan to help deal with psychosocial problems, a patient aggression study, a study that focused on addressing adverse working conditions of healthcare home workers, and a cognitive rehearsal initiative to respond to bullying behaviour. We explicitly excluded the latter ( Griffin 2004 ) from our review as it focused on the management and not the prevention of bullying. Although Stagg 2010 deals with a very diverse body of evidence, we concur with the authors' conclusions about the need for standardised means of developing, implementing, and evaluating bullying programs to enable better comparisons.

Illing 2013 synthesised the evidence about the occurrence, causes, consequences, and management of bullying and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. The authors focused on how this information could be used to inform decision‐making on bullying in the NHS. They highlighted the importance of commitment from senior management if interventions are to be successful, and stressed the importance of preventing bullying as well as managing it and supporting those who have experienced it.

Branch 2013 aimed to articulate the state of the knowledge in the workplace bullying field. The authors designed a model to describe the processes of workplace bullying. They made suggestions for further research that focus on agreeing a definition, a guiding theory, the wider sociology of bullying, and determining the effectiveness of preventative and management interventions.

Hodgins 2014 critically reviewed 12 papers that reported on studies "designed to reduce workplace bullying or incivility", concluding that there was a lack of evaluated interventions in the area. Unlike our Cochrane review, the authors did not focus solely on prevention nor did they limit their inclusion criteria to particular study designs. However, they included evidence of the effectiveness of the CREW intervention as we did in our review.

We highlighted the limited number of well designed studies that have investigated the effectiveness of interventions to prevent bullying in the workplace. Some of the reviews included studies that focused on interventions to prevent bullying among school children. However, it was clear that these participants, their behaviours and the context are very different to those encountered in workplace bullying, limiting transferability of their findings.

These other reviews also reflected the predominance of secondary and tertiary prevention interventions as defined by Lamontagne 2007 . Interventions that address prevention rather than ameliorative or reactive practices are needed to help change the culture of bullying that persists in many workplaces.

Implications for practice

We found very low quality evidence from two large‐scale studies of small improvements in civility after an intensive and long‐term organisational intervention in healthcare organisations. There were no studies of organisational interventions in other occupations or branches of industry.

We found only one study evaluating an intervention at the individual level. It engaged a diverse range of individual employees using an expressive writing intervention. The study found very low quality evidence of a reduction in the incidence of incivility victimisation for those participants who showed a low or moderate pretest score. There was one other study that found very low quality evidence of a cognitive behavioural intervention having no effect on the occurrence of bullying.

We found no studies evaluating societal or policy level interventions to prevent bullying at work.

Implications for research

We recommend that future studies should follow the UK Medical Research Council Complex Interventions Framework ( MRC 2008 ; Moore 2014 ). Whilst the randomised controlled trial design is still regarded as the preferred design to elicit efficacy, future trials need to ensure the appropriate unit of randomisation, which, depending on the nature of the intervention, may be the individual, the work group, or an entire organisation. However, randomisation is difficult at the group level in workplaces. Controlled before‐after studies that take account of the workplace context and fully understand the mechanisms of action to maximise the benefits of interventions are a more feasible approach. Bearing all this in mind, we suggest that future studies should combine the benefits of randomised controlled trials with more realistic evaluation methods to bring the benefits of efficacy together with the understanding of contextual factors and mechanisms of action, for example, following a realist approach ( Bonell 2012 ). In particular, assessing how the various components of an intervention interact with each other and with local contextual factors is important, as is examining the effects of the separate components. This can be done effectively using multi‐arm studies and factorial trials ( Bonell 2012 ). The complexity of workplace bullying calls for a multi‐level approach to prevention, which may start with policy but ultimately needs to meet the needs of employees and organisations within a diverse and ever‐changing context that is the workplace. We do not know if successful prevention interventions need to operate across all the levels advocated by Vartia 2011 . Therefore, we need rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of legal and regulation frameworks (society/policy level); interventions focused on workplace culture (organisation/employer level); interventions to address the psychosocial environment (job/task level); and training and educational interventions (individual/ job interface level).

We recommend that studies of interventions at the society/policy level and those addressing the psychosocial environment at job/task level be conducted, as we found none to include in this review. We recommend further research on the CREW intervention ( Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ) as it aims to improve workers’ behaviours at the level of workplace culture. Interventions at individual/job interface level could include a similar expressive writing task to that used by Kirk 2011 , as it is a simple, cost‐effective intervention to implement. Cognitive‐behavioural interventions should also be tested with a larger sample size and longer follow‐up period to that used by McGrath 2010 . Ideally, interventions would be drawn from a comprehensive evidence‐based 'menu' to address all affected levels from individual to organisational. When a specific intervention has been shown to be effective, a cost‐benefit analysis should be instigated. The proliferation of online communication within workplaces adds a new dimension to an already complex context. Hong 2014 has reported that online cyber‐bullying can occur within organisations, which may require special attention by researchers. On the other hand, the online environment may also provide suitable tools for conducting and evaluating interventions.

In considering the treatment that control group participants should receive, a consideration of research ethics is required. This means taking full account of ethical principles such as beneficence, non‐maleficence, autonomy and justice ( Beauchamp 2012 ). We agree that when there is a known issue of bullying, there are ethical implications of including a control group which denies participants benefits from interventions. However, increasingly the proven effectiveness of interventions is being demanded and this is difficult to demonstrate without a control or comparison group. Future studies on prevention of bullying can circumvent claims regarding the unethical treatment of half the randomised participants by using a wait‐list control group. Here no one is denied the possible benefits of the intervention, as the control group receives the same intervention after a waiting period.

Simple effective outcome measures, such as bullying victimisation and perpetration, should continue to be used but they require standardisation. For example, the Civility scale ( Leiter 2011 ; Osatuke 2009 ), the Workplace Incivility Scale, documented rates of absenteeism ( Leiter 2011 ), or rates of reported victimisation ( McGrath 2010 ) could all be useful outcome measures. Although it would be desirable to establish long‐term outcomes, we recognise the inherent difficulties in this, due to the highly dynamic nature of employment in all settings. However, in keeping with Leiter 2011 , we recommend a minimum of 6 months follow‐up, preferably 12 months, in order to demonstrate a sustained change. Giving feedback to employees, or providing continued small amounts of intervention input, may help participants to stay motivated and continue in the process. Future work should include demographic factors as potential explanatory variables as this may assist in targeting interventions to those most susceptible to bullying victimisation and perpetration.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the following people who have contributed at different stages to the development of this review, and also for their constructive criticism and feedback:

From the Cochrane Work Group:

Mr Jani Ruotsalainen, Managing Editor;

Dr Jos Verbeek, Co‐ordinating Editor;

Dr Consol Serra, Editor;

Mr Wim van Veelen, Reviewer;

Ms Leena Isotalo, Information Specialist;

Mrs Kaisa Neuvonen, Information Specialist;

Dr Anneli Ojajärvi, Statistician;

Vicky Pennick, Copy Editor.

We would also like to thank:

Jenny Bellorini from the Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group for copy editing the protocol text;

Dr Deirdre FitzGerald, Occupational Physician, Cork, for her help and support with the updated search strategies;

Dr Paul Slater for statistical advice.

Appendix 1. Search Strategies

Osh (international bibliographic, cisdoc, hseline, nioshtic, nioshtic‐2, rilosh; osh update; via the cochrane library).

• DC{ OUBIB or OUCISD or OUHSEL or OUNIOC OR OUNIOS or OURILO}
• GW{bullying OR bully OR bullie* OR harassment* OR intimidat* OR aggression* OR personality clash OR horizontal violence}
• GW{cross over* or double blind* or singl* blind* or clinical trial*}
• GW{random* or factorial* or crossover* or placebo* or assign* or allocat* or volunteer*}
• #3 OR #4 #1
• AND #2 AND #5
• GW{controlled trial* or evaluation or intervention stud* or comparative stud* or controlled stud* or experiment* or time series or impact* or intervention* or chang* or evaluat* or effect*}
• GW{before and after}
• #1 AND #2 AND #9
• GW{((work* or occupation* or prevention* or protect*) and (effect* or control* or evaluation* or program*))}
• #1 AND #2 AND #12
• #13 NOT (#6 OR #10)
• #6 OR #11 OR #14

CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library)

bullying OR bully OR bullie* OR harassment* OR Mobbing* OR intimidat* OR aggression* OR "Personality clash" OR "horizontal violence"

2. MeSH descriptor Work, this term only

3. MeSH descriptor Workplace, this term only

4. MeSH descriptor Employment, this term only

5. MeSH descriptor Health Personnel, explode all trees

6. MeSH descriptor Occupational Health Services, explode all trees

7. MeSH descriptor Health Care Sector, explode tree 1

8. ( workplace* OR worksite* OR "workplace" OR "workplaces" OR "worksite" OR "worksites" OR "work setting" OR "work settings" OR "work environment" OR "work location" OR "work locations" OR Job):ti,ab,kw or (work*):ti

9. (worker* OR Staff OR personnel OR "human resources" Or colleague* OR Nurse* OR doctor* OR Physician* OR midwife* OR midwives* OR "allied health professionals" OR employee* OR employer*):ti,ab,kw

10. (small AND medium* AND enterpri*):ti,ab,kw

11. (company OR Companies OR business* OR factory OR factories OR Office* OR organisation* OR organization*):ti,ab,kw and(scheme OR strategy OR strategies OR policy OR policies OR climate OR culture OR sociocultural OR program OR programs):ti,ab,kw

12. (legislati*):ti,ab,kw

13. (#2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12)

14. (#1 AND #13)

PUBMED (via Ovid)

1 .bullying OR bully OR bullie* OR harassment* OR mobbing* OR intimidat* OR aggression* OR "personality clash" OR "horizontal violence"  

2.Work[Mesh] OR Workplace[Mesh] OR Employment[Mesh] OR Health personnel[Mesh] OR Occupational Health Services[Mesh] OR Health Care Sector[Mesh] 

3.workplace*[tiab] OR worksite*[tiab] OR "work place"[tiab] OR "work places"[tiab] OR "work site"[tiab] OR "work sites"[tiab] OR "work setting"[tiab] OR "work settings"[tiab] OR "work environment"[tiab] OR  "work location"[tiab] OR "work locations"[tiab]  OR job[tiab] OR work*[ti]

4.worker*[tiab] OR staff[tiab] OR personnel[tiab] OR "human resources"[tiab] OR colleague*[tiab] OR nurse*[tiab] OR doctor*[tiab] OR physician*[tiab] OR midwife*[tiab] OR midwives*[tiab] OR "allied health professionals"[tiab] OR employee*[tiab] OR employer*[tiab] 

5. small[tiab] AND medium*[tiab] AND enterpri*[tiab] 

6.(company[tiab] OR companies[tiab] OR business*[tiab] OR factory[tiab] OR factories[tiab] OR office*[tiab] OR organisation*[tiab] OR organization*[tiab]) AND (scheme[tiab] OR strategy[tiab] OR strategies[tiab] OR policy[tiab] OR policies[tiab] OR climate[tiab] OR culture[tiab] OR sociocultural[tiab] OR program[tiab] OR programs[tiab])  

7.intervention* OR legislati*[tiab] 

8. 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 

9.1 AND 8 

10. (randomized controlled trial[pt] OR controlled clinical trial[pt] OR randomized[tiab] OR placebo[tiab] OR drug therapy[sh] OR randomly[tiab] OR trial[tiab] OR groups[tiab] NOT (animals [mh] NOT humans [mh])) 

11 . 9 AND 10 

12."Controlled Clinical Trial"[pt] OR "Evaluation Studies"[pt] OR "Comparative Study" [pt] 

13."Intervention Studies"[Mesh] OR "Random Allocation"[Mesh] OR "Evaluation Studies as Topic"[Mesh] OR "Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic"[Mesh] 

14. "pre test"[tw] OR "post test"[tw] OR pretest[tw] OR posttest[tw] OR impact[tw] OR intervention*[tw] OR chang*[tw] OR evaluat*[tw] OR  effect*[tw] OR "before and after"[tiab] OR randomized[tiab] OR randomised[tiab] OR placebo[tiab] OR randomly[tiab] OR trial[tiab] OR groups[tiab] 

15. Animals[Mesh] NOT Humans[Mesh] 

16. (12 OR 13 OR 14) NOT 15 

17 . 9 AND 16 

18. 17 NOT 11 

19. (effect*[tw] OR control[tw] OR controls*[tw] OR controla*[tw] OR controle*[tw] OR controli*[tw] OR controll*[tw] OR evaluation*[tw] OR program*[tw]) AND (work[tw] OR works*[tw] OR work*[tw] OR worka*[tw] OR worke*[tw] OR workg*[tw] OR worki*[tw] OR workl*[tw] OR workp*[tw] OR occupation*[tw] OR prevention*[tw] OR protect*[tw]) 

20 . 9 AND 19 

21. 20 NOT (11 OR 17) 

22. 11 OR 17 OR 20

EMBASE (via Ovid)

1. 'bullying'/exp

2. bullying:ab,ti OR bully:ab,ti OR bullie*:ab,ti OR harassment*:ab,ti OR mobbing*:ab,ti OR intimidat*:ab,ti OR aggression:ab,ti

3. 'personality clash' OR 'horizontal violence'

4. #1 OR #2 OR #3

5. 'work'/exp OR 'employment'/exp OR 'health care personnel'/exp OR 'occupational health service'/exp OR 'named groups by occupation'/exp OR 'work environment'/de

6. workplace*:ab,ti OR worksite*:ab,ti OR 'work place':ab,ti OR 'work places':ab,ti OR 'work site':ab,ti OR 'work sites':ab,ti OR 'work setting':ab,ti OR 'work settings':ab,ti OR 'work environment':ab,ti OR job:ab,ti OR work*:ti

7. small NEXT/5 medium* AND enterpri*

8. worker*:ab,ti OR staff:ab,ti OR personnel:ab,ti OR 'human resources':ab,ti OR colleague*:ab,ti OR nurse*:ab,ti OR doctor*:ab,ti OR physician*:ab,ti OR midwife*:ab,ti OR midwives*:ab,ti OR 'allied health professionals':ab,ti OR 'allied health personnel':ab,ti OR employee*:ab,ti OR employer*:ab,ti

9. (company:ab,ti OR companies:ab,ti OR business*:ab,ti OR factory:ab,ti OR factories:ab,ti OR office*:ab,ti OR organisation*:ab,ti OR organization*:ab,ti) AND (scheme:ab,ti OR strategy:ab,ti OR strategies:ab,ti OR policy:ab,ti OR policies:ab,ti OR climate:ab,ti OR culture:ab,ti OR sociocultural:ab,ti OR program:ab,ti OR programs:ab,ti)

10. legislati*:ab,ti OR intervention*:ab,ti

11. #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10

12. #4 AND #11

13. #12 AND [embase]/lim NOT [medline]/lim

14. random* OR factorial* OR crossover* OR cross NEXT/1 over* OR placebo* OR doubl* NEXT/1 blind* OR singl* NEXT/1 blind* OR assign* OR allocat* OR volunteer*

15. 'crossover procedure'/exp OR 'double blind procedure'/exp OR 'single blind procedure'/exp OR 'randomized controlled trial'/exp

16. 'clinical trial (topic)'/exp

17. #14 OR #15 OR #16

18. #13 AND #17

19. 'evaluation'/exp OR 'intervention study'/exp OR 'comparative study'/exp OR 'controlled study'/exp

20. 'pre test':ab,ti OR pretest:ab,ti OR 'post test':ab,ti OR posttest:ab,ti

21. experiment*:ab,ti OR 'time series':ab,ti OR impact*:ab,ti OR intervention*:ab,ti OR chang*:ab,ti OR evaluat*:ab,ti OR effect*:ab,ti OR 'before and after':ab,ti OR trial:ab OR groups:ab

22. #19 OR #20 OR #21

23. #13 AND #22

24. #23 NOT #18

25. (effect* OR control* OR evaluation* OR program*) AND (work* OR occupation* OR prevention* OR protect*)

26. #13 AND #25

27. #26 NOT (#18 OR #23)

28. #18 OR #23 OR #26

PsycINFO (via Ovid)

1. bullying/

2. exp Harassment/

3. (bullying or bully or bullie* or harassment* or intimidat* or aggression*).ab,ti.

4. personality clash.mp.

5. horizontal violence.mp.

6. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5

7. exp Health Personnel/

8. exp Occupational Health/

9. exp Occupations/

10. personnel/

11. employee interaction/

12. (workplace* or worksite* or work place* or work site* or work setting* or work environment* or job).ab,ti.

13. (small* adj5 medium* adj5 enterpri*).mp.

14. (worker* or staff or personnel or human resources or colleague* or nurse* or doctor* or physician* or midwife* or midwives* or allied health professionals or

allied health personnel or employee* or employer*).ab,ti.

15. work*.ti.

16. 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15

17. ((company or companies or business* or factory or factories or office* or organization* or organisation*) and (scheme or strategy or strategies or policy or

policies or climate or culture or sociocultural or program or programs)).ab,ti.

18. legislati*.ab,ti.

19.16 or 17 or 18

20. 6 and 19

21. (random* or factorial* or crossover* or placebo* or assign* or allocat* or volunteer*).mp.

22. (cross over* or double blind* or singl* blind*).mp.

23. clinical trials/

24. 21 or 22 or 23

25 . 20 and 24

26. (controlled trial* or evaluation or intervention stud* or comparative stud* or controlled stud*).ab,ti.

27. (experiment* or time series or impact* or intervention* or chang* or evaluat* or effect*).ab,ti.

28. (before and after).ab,ti.

29. intervention/

30. 26 or 27 or 28 or 29

31. 20 and 30

32. 31 not 25

33. ((work* or occupation* or prevention* or protect*) and (effect* or control* or evaluation* or program*)).mp.

34. 20 and 33

35 . 34 not (25 or 31)

36. 25 or 31 or 34

CINAHL Plus (via EBSCO host)

1. TX bully*

2. TX bullies

3. AB harass*

4. AB intimidat*

5. TX mobbing

6. AB aggress*

7. TX "personality clash"

8. TX "horizontal violence"

9. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8

10. AB work*

11.AB employ*

12. AB occupation*

14. AB staff

15. AB personnel

16. TX "human resources"

17. AB colleague*

18. TX enterpri*

19. TX compan*

20. TX business*

21. TX factory

22. TX factories

23. TX office*

24. TX organisation*

25. TX organization*

26. 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25

27. AB random*

28. AB control*

29. AB therapy

30. AB placebo

31. AB trial

32. AB evaluat*

33. TX study

34. TX impact

35. TX intervention*

36. TX chang*

37. AB effect*

38. AB prevent*

39. AB protect*

40. AB program*

41. 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 or 37 or 38 or 39 or 40

42. 9 and 26 and 41

IBSS (via EBSCO host)

#1. bullying OR bully OR bullie* OR harassment* OR mobbing* OR intimidat* OR aggression* OR "personality clash" OR "horizontal violence"

#2. Work OR Workplace OR Employment OR Health personnel OR Occupational Health Services OR Health Care Sector

#3. AB,TI(workplace*) OR AB,TI (worksite*) OR AB,TI (work place) OR AB,TI (work places) OR AB,TI (work site) OR AB,TI (work sites) OR AB,TI (work setting) OR AB,TI (work settings) OR AB,TI (work environment) OR AB,TI (work location) OR AB,TI (work locations) OR AB,TI (job) OR AB,TI (work*)

#4. AB,TI(worker*) OR AB,TI(staff) OR AB,TI(personnel) OR AB,TI(human resources) OR AB,TI(colleague*) OR AB,TI(nurse*) OR AB,TI(doctor*) OR AB,TI(physician*) OR AB,TI(midwife*) OR AB,TI(midwives*) OR AB,TI(allied health professionals) OR AB,TI(employee*) OR AB,TI( employer*)

#5. AB,TI(small) AND AB,TI(medium*) AND AB,TI(enterpri*)

#6. (AB,TI(company) OR AB,TI(companies) OR AB,TI(business*) OR AB,TI(factory) OR AB,TI(factories) OR AB,TI(office*) OR AB,TI(organisation*) OR AB,TI(organization*)) AND (AB,TI(scheme) OR AB,TI(strategy) OR AB,TI(strategies) OR AB,TI(policy) OR AB,TI(policies) OR AB,TI(climate) OR AB,TI(culture) OR AB,TI(sociocultural) OR AB,TI(program) OR AB,TI(programs))

#7. AB,TI(intervention*) OR AB,TI(legislati*)

#8. #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7

#9. #1 AND #8

#10. (randomized controlled trial OR controlled clinical trial OR AB,TI(randomized) OR AB,TI(placebo) OR drug therapy OR AB,TI(randomly) OR AB,TI( trial) OR AB,TI(groups) NOT (animals NOT humans))

#11. #9 AND #10

#12. (Controlled Clinical Trial) OR (Evaluation Studies) OR (Comparative Study)

#13. (Intervention Studies) OR (Random Allocation) OR (Evaluation Studies) OR (Controlled Clinical Trials)

#14. “pre test” OR “post test” OR pretest OR posttest OR impact OR intervention* OR chang* OR evaluat* OR effect* OR AB,TI(“before and after”) OR AB,TI(randomized) OR AB,TI(randomised) OR AB,TI(placebo) OR AB,TI(randomly) OR AB,TI( trial) OR AB,TI(groups)

#15. Animals NOT Humans

#16. (#12 OR #13 OR #14) NOT #15

#17. #9 AND #16

#18. #17 NOT #11

#19. (effect* OR control OR controls* OR controla* OR controle* OR controli* OR controll* OR evaluation* OR program*) AND (work OR works* OR work'* OR worka* OR worke* OR workg* OR worki* OR workl* OR workp* OR occupation* OR prevention* OR protect*)

#20. #9 AND #19

#21. #20 NOT (#11 OR #17)

#22. #11 OR #17 OR #20

ASSIA (via EBSCO host)

Abi global (via ebsco host), business source premier (via ebsco host).

1. 'Bullying in the workplace'

2. Scholarly Peer Reviewed Journals

3. S1 & S2

OpenGrey (Previously OpenSIGLE‐System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe)

1. (bullying OR bully OR bullie* OR harassment* OR intimidat* OR aggression*) AND (workplace* OR work site* OR work setting* OR work environment* OR job OR worker* OR staff OR personnel OR human resources OR colleague*) AND (scheme OR strategy OR strategies OR policy OR policies OR climate OR culture OR sociocultural OR program OR programs OR interven* OR legislati*)

Data and analyses

Comparison 1, comparison 2, comparison 3, characteristics of studies, characteristics of included studies [ordered by study id], characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study id], differences between protocol and review.

1. British Nursing Index (BNI) has now been amalgamated into CINAHL (which is now known as CINAHL Plus), so we did not search BNI separately.

2. ABI Global replaced the Emerald database search.

3. An initial search of the databases 'Index to Theses' and 'Health Management Information Consortium' (HMIC) did not retrieve any studies to include so we excluded these from further searches.

4. In Types of interventions , we broadened the inclusion criterion from "enhancements to reporting mechanisms that make it easier for individuals to report bullying ".to "enhancements to reporting mechanisms that make it easier for individuals to report problematic behaviour" , in order to include all such prevention interventions.

5. We expanded the primary outcomes to include self‐report measurement. In the protocol we had assumed that we would have data from employers, but this was not always available.

Contributions of authors

Patricia Gillen led the writing of the protocol and the review with contributions from Marlene Sinclair, George Kernohan, Cecily Begley, and Ans Luyben. All authors screened references for studies to include, and extracted data. George Kernohan led on the analysis and all authors contributed to the final drafting of the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources.

Awarded Patricia Gillen a Research Fellowship to undertake this review.

Supported Ans Luyben in the preliminary stages of this review.

External sources

• No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

Patricia Gillen: I was awarded the Royal College of Midwifery Ruth Davies Research Bursary in 2004 for PhD study into the nature and manifestations of bullying in midwifery. However, the RCM did not influence the study or findings reported. The definition used at the beginning of my PhD study was one used by the RCM in their research in 1996.

Marlene Sinclair: None known.

George Kernohan: None known.

Cecily Begley: None known.

Ans Luyben: None known.

References to studies included in this review

Hoel 2006 {published data only}.

• Hoel H, Giga SI, with Contributions from Brian Faragher. Destructive Interpersonal Conflict in the Workplace: The Effectiveness of Management Interventions . British Occupational Health Research Foundation (BOHRF) 2006:1‐85.

Kirk 2011 {published data only}

• Kirk BA, Schutte NS, Hine DW. The Effect of an Expressive‐writing Intervention for Employees on Emotional Self‐Efficacy, Emotional Intelligence, Affect, and Workplace Incivility . Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2011; 41 ( 1 ):179‐95. [ Google Scholar ]

Leiter 2011 {published data only}

• Leiter MP, Day A, Gilin Oore D, Spence Laschinger HK. Getting better and staying better: assessing civility, incivility, distress and job attitudes one year after a civility intervention . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2012; 17 ( 4 ):425‐34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leiter MP, Spence Laschinger HK, Day A, Gilin Oore D. The impact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes . Journal of Applied Psychology 2011; 96 ( 6 ):1258‐74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

McGrath 2010 {published data only}

• McGrath L, Jones RSP, Hastings RP. Outcomes of anti‐bullying interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities . Research in Developmental Disabilities 2010; 31 :376‐80. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Osatuke 2009 {published data only}

• Osatuke K, Moore SC, Ward C, Dyrenforth SR, Belton L. Civility, Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW): Nationwide Organization Development Intervention at Veterans Health Administration . The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 2014; 45 :304‐410. [ Google Scholar ]

References to studies excluded from this review

Barrett 2009 {published data only}.

• Barrett A, Korber S, Padula C. Lessons learned from a lateral violence and team‐building intervention . Nursing Administration Quarterly 2009; 33 ( 4 ):342‐51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Beirne 2013 {published data only}

• Beirne M, Hunter P. Workplace bullying and the challenge of pre‐emptive management . Personnel Review 2013; 42 ( 5 ):595‐612. [ Google Scholar ]

Bortoluzzi 2014 {published data only}

• Bortoluzzi G, Caporale L, Palese A. Does participative leadership reduce the onset of mobbing risk among nurse working teams? . Journal of Nursing Management 2014; 22 :643‐52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Bourbonnais 2006a {published data only}

• Bourbonnais R, Brisson C, Vinet A, Vézina M, Abdous B, Gaudet M. Effectiveness of a participative intervention on psychosocial work factors to prevent mental health problems in a hospital setting . Occupational Environmental Medicine 2006; 63 :335‐42. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Brunges 2014 {published data only}

• Brunges M, Foley‐Brianza C. Projects for increasing job satisfaction and creating a healthy work environment . AORN Journal 2014; 100 ( 6 ):670‐81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Ceravolo 2012 {published data only}

• Ceravolo DJ, Schwartz DG, Foltz‐Ramos KM, Castner J. Strengthening communication to overcome lateral violence . Journal of Nursing Management 2012; 20 :599–606. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Chipps 2012 {published data only}

• Chipps EM, McRury M. The development of an educational intervention to address workplace bullying . Journal for Nurses in Staff Development 2012; 28 ( 3 ):94‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Collette 2004 {published data only}

• Collette JE. Retention of nursing staff — a team‐based approach . Australian Health Review 2004; 28 ( 3 ):349‐56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Cooper‐Thomas 2013 {published data only}

• Cooper‐Thomas H, Gardner D, O'Driscoll M, Catley T, Bentley B, Trenberth L. Neutralizing workplace bullying: the buffering effects of contextual factors . Journal of Managerial Psychology 2013; 28 ( 4 ):384‐407. [ Google Scholar ]

Crawford 1999 {published data only}

• Crawford N. Conundrums and confusion in organisations: the etymology of the word `bully' . International Journal of Manpower 1999; 20 ( 1/2 ):86‐94. [ Google Scholar ]

Egues 2014 {published data only}

• Egues AL, Leinung EZ. Antibullying Workshops: Shaping Minority Nursing Leaders Through Curriculum Innovation . Nursing Forum 2014; 49 ( 4 ):240‐5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Feda 2010 {published data only}

• Feda DM, Gerberich SG, Ryan AD, Nachreiner NM, McGovern PM. Written violence policies and risk of physical assault against Minnesota educators . Journal of Public Health Policy 2010; 31 ( 4 ):461‐77. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Gedro 2013 {published data only}

• Gedro J, Wang G. Creating civil and respectful organizations through the scholar‐practitioner bridge . Advances in Developing Human Resources 2013; 15 ( 3 ):284‐95. [ Google Scholar ]

Gilbert 2013 {published data only}

• Gilbert JA, Raffo DM, Sutarso T. Gender, conflict, and workplace bullying: is civility policy the silver bullet? . Journal of Managerial Issues 2013; XXV ( 1 ):79‐98. [ Google Scholar ]

Grenyer 2004 {published data only}

• Grenyer BFS, IIkiw‐Lavalle O, Biro P, Middleby‐Clements J, Comninos A, Coleman M. Safer at work: development and evaluation of an aggression and violence minimization program . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2004; 38 :804‐10. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Griffin 2004 {published data only}

• Griffin M. Teaching cognitive rehearsal as a shield for lateral violence: an intervention for newly registered nurses . The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 2004; 35 ( 6 ):257‐63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Holme 2006 {published data only}

• Holme CA. Impact not intent . Industrial and Commercial Training 2006; 38 ( 5 ):242‐7. [ Google Scholar ]

Karakas 2015 {published data only}

• Karakas SA, Okanli A. The effect of assertiveness training on the mobbing that nurses experience . Workplace Health and Safety 2015; 63 ( 10 ):446‐51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lasater 2015 {published data only}

• Lasater K, Buchwach D. Reducing incivility in the workplace: results of a three‐part educational intervention . The Journal of Continuing Education In Nursing 2015; 46 ( 1 ):15‐23. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Latham 2008 {published data only}

• Latham CL, Hogan M, Ringl K. Nurses supporting nurses: creating a mentoring program for staff nurses to improve the workforce environment . Nursing Administration Quarterly 2008; 32 ( 1 ):27‐39. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Léon‐Pérez 2012 {published data only}

• Léon‐Pérez J, Arenas A, Butts Griggs T. Effectiveness of conflict management training to prevent workplace bullying . In: Noreen Tehrani editor(s). Workplace Bullying Symptoms and Solutions . 1st Edition. New York: Routledge, 2012:230‐43. [ Google Scholar ]

Longo 2011 {published data only}

• Longo J, Dean A, Norris SD, Wexner SW, Kent LN. It starts with a conversation: a community approach to creating healthy work environments . Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 2011; 42 ( 1 ):27‐35. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Mallette 2011 {published data only}

• Mallette C, Duff M, McPhee C, Pollex H, Wood A. Workbooks to virtual worlds: a pilot study comparing educational tools to foster a culture of safety and respect in Ontario . Nursing Leadership 2011; 24 ( 4 ):44‐64. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Meloni 2011 {published data only}

• Meloni M, Austin M. Implementation and outcomes of a zero tolerance of bullying and harassment program . Australian Health Review 2011; 35 ( 1 ):92‐4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Melwani 2011 {published data only}

• Melwani S, Barsade S. Held in contempt: the psychological, interpersonal, and performance consequences of contempt in a work context . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2011; 101 ( 3 ):503‐20. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Mikkelsen 2011 {published data only}

• Mikkelsen EG, Hogh A, Puggaard LB. Prevention of bullying and conflicts at work . International Journal of Workplace Health Management 2011; 4 ( 1 ):84‐100. [ Google Scholar ]

Nikstatis 2014 {published data only}

• Nikstaitis T, Simko LC. Incivility among intensive care nurses . Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing 2014; 33 ( 5 ):293‐301. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Oostrom 2008 {published data only}

• Oostrom JK, Mierlo H. An evaluation of an aggression management training program to cope with workplace violence in the healthcare sector . Research in Nursing and Health 2008; 31 :320‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Pate 2010 {published data only}

• Pate J, Beaumont P. Bullying and harassment: a case of success? . Employee Relations 2010; 32 ( 2 ):171‐83. [ Google Scholar ]

Probst 2008 {published data only}

• Probst TM, Gold D, Caborn J. A preliminary evaluation of SOLVE: addressing psychosocial problems at work . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2008; 13 ( 1 ):32‐42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Stagg 2011 {published data only}

• Stagg SJ, Sheridan D, Speroni KG. Evaluation of a workplace bullying cognitive rehearsal program in a hospital setting . Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 2011; 42 ( 9 ):395‐401. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Stevens 2002 {published data only}

• Stevens S. Nursing workforce retention: challenging a bullying culture . Health Affairs 2002; 21 ( 5 ):189‐93. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Strandmark 2014 {published data only}

• Strandmark M, Rahm G. Development, implementation and evaluation of a process to prevent and combat workplace bullying . Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 2014; 42 ( Suppl 15 ):66‐73. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wagner 2012 {published data only}

• Wagner KC, Yates D, Walcott Q. Engaging men and women as allies: A workplace curriculum module to challenge gender norms about domestic violence, male bullying and workplace violence and encourage ally behavior . Work 2012; 42 :107‐13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Woodrow 2014 {published data only}

• Woodrow C, Guest DE. When good HR gets bad results: exploring the challenge of HR implementation in the case of workplace bullying . Human Resource Management Journal 2014; Vol 24 ( 1 ):38‐56. [ Google Scholar ]

Additional references

• Adams A. Bullying at Work: how to confront and overcome it . London: Virago, 1992:12‐3. [ Google Scholar ]

Al‐Daraji 2009

• Al‐Daraji WI. An old problem that keeps re‐emerging without a solution . Internet Journal of Law, Healthcare & Ethics (ISPUB.COM) 2009; 6 ( 1 ):1‐9. [ Google Scholar ]

Appelbaum 2012

• Appelbaum SH, Semerijan G, Mohan K. Workplace bullying: consequences causes and controls (part one) . Industrial and Commercial Training 2012; 44 ( 4 ):203‐10. [ Google Scholar ]

Arnetz 2000

• Arnetz JE, Arnetz BB. Implementaion and evaluation of a practical intervention programme for dealing with violence towards health workers . Journal of Advanced Nursing 2000; 31 ( 3 ):668‐80. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Ashforth 1994

• Ashforth B. Petty tyranny in organizations . Human Relations 1994; 47 ( 7 ):775‐9. [ Google Scholar ]

Baillien 2009

• Baillien E, Witte H. Why is organizational change related to workplace bullying? Role conflict and job insecurity as mediators . Economic and Industrial Democracy 2009; 30 ( 3 ):348‐71. [ Google Scholar ]

Baillien 2011a

• Baillien E, Cuyper N, Witte H. Job autonomy and workload as antecedents of workplace bullying: a two‐wave test of Karasek’s Job Demand Control Model for targets and perpetrators . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 2011; 84 :191‐208. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ball L, Curtis P, Kirkham M. Why do Midwives Leave? . London: Royal College of Midwives, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]

Bartlett, 2011

• Bartlett JE, Bartlett ME. Workplace bullying: an integrative literature review . Advances in Developing Human Resources 2011; 13 ( 1 ):69‐84. [ Google Scholar ]

Bassman 1992

• Bassman ES. Abuse in the Workplace: Management Remedies and Bottom Line Impact . Westport CT: Quorum Books, 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beale D, Hoel H. Workplace bullying and the employment relationship: exploring questions of prevention, control and context . Work, Employment and Society 2011; 25 ( 1 ):5‐18. [ Google Scholar ]

Beauchamp 2012

• Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics . 7th Edition. Oxford University Press, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beech B, Leather P. Workplace violence in the health care sector: A review of staff training and integration of training evaluation models . Aggression and Violent Behaviour 2006; 11 ( 1 ):27‐43. [ Google Scholar ]

Bentley 2012

• Bentley TA, Catley B, Cooper‐Thomas H, Garner D, O'Driscoll MP, Dale A, et al. Perceptions of workplace bullying in the New Zealand travel Industry: prevalence and management . Tourism Management 2012; 33 ( 2 ):351‐60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry P. Gillespie GL. Gates D. Schafer J. Novice nurse productivity following workplace bullying . Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2012; 44 ( 1 ):80‐7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Bonell 2012

• Bonell C. Fletcher A. Morton M. Lorenc T. Moore L. Realist randomised controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions . Social Science & Medicine 2012; 75 :2299‐2306. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Bourbonnais 2006b

• Bourbonnais R, Brisson C, Vinet A, Vézina M, Lower A. Development and implementation of a participative intervention to improve the psychosocial work environment and mental health in an acute care hospital . Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2006; 63 :326‐34. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Branch 2013

• Branch S, Ramsay S, Barker M. Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and General Harassment: A Review . International Journal of Management Reviews 2013; 15 :280‐99. [ Google Scholar ]

Brodsky 1976

• Brodsky CM. The Harassed Worker . Lexington MA: D.C. Heath, 1976. [ Google Scholar ]

Bulutlar 2009

• Bulutlar F, Oz EU. The effects of ethical climates on bullying behaviour in the workplace. . Journal of Business Ethics 2009; 86 ( 3 ):273‐95. [ Google Scholar ]

Butterworth 2013

• Butterworth P, Leach LS, Kiely KM. The relationship between work characteristics, well being, depression and workplace bullying: summary report . Available from: safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/781/Wellbeing‐depression‐bullying‐summary‐report.pdf (accessed 30 July 2015).

Campbell 2001

• Campbell MK, Mollison J, Grimshaw JM. Cluster trials in implementation research: estimation of intra cluster correlation coefficients and sample size . Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20 ( 3 ):391‐9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Carponecchia 2011

• Carponecchia C, Wyatt A. Preventing Workplace Bullying: an Evidence‐based Guide for Managers and Employees . East Sussex: Routledge, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]

Carroll 2012

• Carroll T, Foucher R, Gosselin E. Prevention of bullying at work: from the individual to the organization [La prévention du harcèlement psychologique au travail : de l'individu à l'organisation]. Revue gestion 2012; 29 ( 3 ):115‐30. [ Google Scholar ]

Carter 1997

• Carter YH, Kenkre JE, Skelton JR, Hobbs FDR. The development of a training pack on the management of aggression and violence in primary care . Safety Science 1997; 25 ( 1‐3 ):223‐30. [ Google Scholar ]

Carter 2013

• Carter M, Thompson N, Crampton P, Morrow G, Burford B, Gray C, et al. Workplace bullying in the UK NHS: a questionnaire and interview study on prevalence, impact and barriers to reporting . British Medical Journal Open 2013; 3 :1‐12. [DOI: ] [ Google Scholar ]

Christmas 2007

• Christmas K. Workplace Abuse: finding solutions . Nursing Economics 2007; 25 ( 6 ):365‐7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Change Agenda: What's happening with well‐being at work? . Available from: cipd.co.uk/nr/rdonlyres/dcce94d7‐781a‐485a‐a702‐6daab5ea7b27/0/whthapwbwrk.pdf (accessed 20 May 2014).
• Clark C. The downward spiral: incivility in nursing . Interview by Stokowski LA. Available from: medscape.com/viewarticle/739328 (accessed 24 June 2016) 2011:1‐6.

Cleary 2009

• Cleary M, Hunt GE, Walter G, Robertson M. Dealing with bullying in the workplace; toward zero tolerance . Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services 2009; 47 ( 12 ):34‐41. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Cleary 2010

• Cleary M, Hunt GE, Horsfall J. Identifying and addressing bullying in nursing . Issues in Mental Health Nursing 2010; 31 ( 5 ):331‐5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Cortina 2001

• Cortina LM, Magley VJ, Williams JH, Langhout RD. Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2001; 6 :64‐80. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Dal Pezzo 2009

• Dal Pezzo NK, Tallet K. Nursing faculty: a vulnerable population . Journal of Nursing Education 2009; 49 ( 3 ):132‐6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawn JA, Cowie H, Bray D. Bully Dance: animation as a tool for conflict resolution . Pastoral care in education 2006; 24 ( 1 ):27‐32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non‐randomised intervention studies . Health Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7, issue 29:39. [ PubMed ]

DelBel 2003

• Bel JC. De‐escalating workplace aggression . Nursing Management 2003; 34 ( 9 ):30‐4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Dignity at Work Partnership 2007

• Dignity at Work Partnership. Dignity at Work . Available from: dignityatwork.org/default.htm 2007.

Djurkovic 2006

• Djurkovic N, McCormack D, Casimir G. Neuroticism and the psychosomatic model of workplace bullying . Journal of Managerial Psychology 2006; 21 ( 1/2 ):33‐44. [ Google Scholar ]

Djurkovic 2008

• Djurkovic N, McCormack D, Casimir G. Workplace bullying and intention to leave: the moderating effect of perceived organisational support . Human Resource Management Journal 2008; 18 ( 4 ):405‐22. [ Google Scholar ]

Dollard 2007

• Dollard M, Skinner N, Tuckey MR, Bailey T. National surveillance of psychosocial risk factors in the workplace: an international review . Work and Stress 2007; 21 ( 1 ):1‐29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non‐randomised studies of health care interventions . Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1998; 52 ( 6 ):377‐84. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duffy M. Preventing workplace mobbing and bullying with effective organizational consultation, policies, and legislation . Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 2009; 61 ( 3 ):242‐62. [ Google Scholar ]

Duncan 2001

• Duncan SM, Hyndman K, Estabrooks CA, Hesketh K, Humphrey CK, Wong JS, et al. Nurses' experience of violence in Alberta and British Columbia Hospitals . The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research 2001; 32 ( 4 ):57‐78. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egues AL, Leinung EZ. The bully within and without: strategies to address horizontal violence in nursing . Nursing Forum 2013; 48 ( 3 ):185‐90. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Einarsen 1996

• Einarsen S, Skogstad A. Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organizations . European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 1996; 5 ( 2 ):185‐201. [ Google Scholar ]

Einarsen 2000

• Einarsen S. Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach . Aggression and Violent Behaviour 2000; 5 ( 4 ):379‐401. [ Google Scholar ]

Einarsen 2009

• Einarsen S, Hoel H, Notelaers G. Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire‐Revised . Work & Stress 2009; 23 ( 1 ):24‐44. [ Google Scholar ]

Einarsen 2011

• Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of bullying and harassment at work . In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL editor(s). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice . Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011:3‐40. [ Google Scholar ]

Einarsen 2015

• Einarsen S, Birkeland Nielsen M. Workplace bullying as an antecedent of mental health problems: a five‐year prospective and representative study . International Archives of Environmental Health 2015; 88 :131‐42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

European Foundation 2010

• European Foundation. Fifth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) . Available from: eurofound.eu/surveys/smt/ewcs/results.htm (accessed 27 September 2011).

European Social Dialogue 2007

• European Social Dialogue. Framework agreement on harassment and violence at work . Available from: etuc.org/a/3524 2007.

Farrell 2005

• Farrell G, Cubit K. Nurses under threat: A comparison of content of 28 aggression management programs . International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 2005; 14 :44‐53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Farrell 2007

• Farrell M. Finding better solutions to end bullying ‐ what a midwife can do . Midwifery Today with International Midwife 2007; 83 :26‐7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Farrington 2009

• Farrington DP, Ttofi MM. School‐based programs to reduce bullying and victimization . Campbell Systematic Reviews Available from: crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/maria_ttofi/pub6.pdf 2009; 6 :148. [ Google Scholar ]

Feblinger 2009

• Feblinger DM. Bulying, incivility, and disruptive behaviors in the healthcare setting: identification, impact, and intervention . Frontiers of Health Service Management 2009; 25 ( 4 ):13‐23. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Fisher‐Blando 2008

• Fisher‐Blando JL. Workplace bullying: aggressive behavior and its effect on job satisfaction and productivity . Available from: workplaceviolence911.com/docs/20081215.pdf 2008:1‐156.

Gardner 2001

• Gardner S, Johnson PR. The leaner, meaner workplace: strategies for handling bullies at work . Employment Relations Today 2001; 28 ( 2 ):23‐36. [ Google Scholar ]

Gerardi 2007

• Gerardi D, Connell M. The emerging culture of healthcare: from horizontal violence to true collaboration . Nebraska Nurse 2007; 40 ( 3 ):16‐8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giga SI, Hoel H, Lewis D. The costs of workplace bullying . Report Commissioned by Dignity at Work Partnership 2008:39.

Gillen 2007

• Gillen P. The nature and manifestations of bullying in midwifery . Unpublished Thesis 2007:257.

Gillen 2008

• Gillen P, Sinclair M, Kernohan WG. The nature and manifestations of bullying in midwifery . Research Summary 2008; 1 :24. [ISBN 978‐1‐89523‐231‐6] [ Google Scholar ]

Gillen 2012

• Gillen PA, Sinclair M, Kernohan WG, Begley CM, Luyben AG. Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 4 . [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009778] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Gilmore 2006

• Gilmore JA. Violence in the workplace . Nephrology Nursing Journal 2006; 33 ( 3 ):254‐5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

GRADEproGDT [Computer program]

• McMaster University, developed by GRADE Working Group and Evidence Prime, Inc.. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. Available from: gradepro.org . Hamilton, ON: McMaster University, developed by GRADE Working Group and Evidence Prime, Inc., 2015.

Halleck 2008

• Halleck GB. Bullying: a ready to use simulation . Journal of Simulation and Gaming 2008; 39 ( 2 ):266‐81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hauge LH, Skogstad A, Einarsen S. Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: results of a large representative study . Work & Stress 2007; 21 ( 3 ):220‐42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hauge LH, Skogstad A, Einarsen S. Individual and situational predictors of workplace bullying: why do perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? . Work and Stress 2009; 23 ( 4 ):349‐58. [ Google Scholar ]

Higgins 2003

• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses . BMJ 2003; 327 ( 7414 ):557‐60. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Higgins 2011

• Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 . Available from: cochrane‐handbook.org .

Hodgins 2014

• Hodgins M, Mac Curtain S, Mannix‐McNamara P. Workplace bullying and incivility: a systematic review of interventions . International Journal of Workplace Health Management 2014; 7 ( 1 ):54‐72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoel H, Cooper C. Destructive conflict and bullying at work . Extracts from report published for launch of the Civil Service Race Equality Network (September, 2001) 2000:1‐30.
• Hoel H, Sheehan MJ, Cooper CL, Einarsen S. Organisational effects of workplace bullying . In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL editor(s). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace . 2nd Edition. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, 2011:129‐147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogh A, Mikkelsen EG, Hansen AM. Individual consequences of workplace bullying/mobbing . In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL editor(s). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research and Practice . 2nd Edition. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, 2011:107‐28. [ Google Scholar ]

Hollins 2010

• Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CJ. Bully for you: harassment and bullying in the workplace . British Journal of Midwifery 2010; 18 ( 1 ):25‐31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong JC, Chien‐Hou L, Hwang MY, Hu RP, Chen YL. Positive affect predicting worker psychological response to cyber‐bullying in the high‐tech industry in Northern Taiwan . Computers in Human Behaviour 2014; 30 :307‐14. [ Google Scholar ]

Hubert 2003

• Hubert AB. To prevent and overcome undesirable interaction . In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL editor(s). Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in research and Practice . London: Taylor & Francis, 2003:299‐311. [ Google Scholar ]

Hutchinson 2013

• Hutchinson M, Hurley J. Exploring leadership capability and emotional intelligence as moderators of workplace bullying . Journal of Nursing Management 2013; 21 :553‐62. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Illing 2013

• Illing JC, Carter M, Thompson NJ, Crampton PES, Morrow GM, Howse JH, et al. Evidence synthesis on the occurrence, causes, consequences, prevention and management of bullying and harassing behaviours to inform decision making in the NHS . Final report. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme 2013:265.

Johnson 2009

• Johnson SL. International perspectives on workplace bullying among nurses: a review . International Nursing Review 2009; 56 ( 1 ):34‐40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Johnson 2011

• Johnson SL. An ecological model of workplace bullying: a guide for intervention and research . Nursing Forum 2011; 46 ( 2 ):55‐63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahl CJ. Effectiveness of a music therapy intervention with victims of mobbing (workplace bullying). [Wirksamkeit einer musiktherapeutischen intervention bei Mobbingbetroffenen]. Musik‐, Tanz‐ und Kunsttherapie 2007; 18 ( 2 ):49‐65. [ Google Scholar ]

Keashly 2010

• Keashly L, Neuman JH. Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education: causes, consequences, and management . Administrative Theory & Praxis 2010; 32 ( 1 ):48‐70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirk BA, Schutte NS, Hine DW. Development and preliminary validation of an emotional self‐efficacy scale . Personality and Individual Differences 2008; 45 :432‐36. [ Google Scholar ]

Kivimäki 2003

• Kivimäki M, Virtanen M, Vartia M, Elovaino M, Vathera J, Keltikangas‐Järvinen L. Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression . Occupational Environmental Medicine 2003; 60 :779‐83. [doi: 10.1136/oem.60.10.779] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Kolanko 2006

• Kolanko KM, Clark C, Heinrich KT, Olive D, Farley‐ Serembus J. Sifford KS. Academic dishonesty: bullying, incivility and violence: difficult challenges facing nurse educators . Nursing Education Perspectives 2006; 27 ( 1 ):34‐43. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lamontagne 2007

• Lamontagne AD, Keegel T, Louie AM, Ostry A, Landsbergis PA. A systematic review of the job‐stress intervention evaluation literature, 1990‐2005 . International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2007; 13 :268‐80. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Laschinger 2012

• Spence‐Laschinger HK, Wong CA, Grau AL. The influence of authentic leadership on newly graduated nurses’ experiences of workplace bullying, burnout and retention outcomes: A cross‐sectional study . International Journal of Nursing Studies 2012; 49 :1266‐76. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Law R, Dollard MF, Tuckey MR, Dormann C. Psychosocial safety climate as a lead indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources, psychological health and employee engagement . Accident Analysis and Prevention 2011; 43 :1782‐93. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leka S, Aditya J, Zwetsloot G, Vartia M, Pahkin K. Psychosocial risk management: the importance and impact of policy level interventions . In: Leka S, Cox T editor(s). The European Framework for Psychosocial Risk Management: PRIMA‐EF . Nottingham, UK: Institute of Work, Health and Organisations (I‐WHO), 2008:115‐35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leka S, Jain A, Iavicoli S, Vartia M, Ertel M. The role of policy for the management of psychosocial risks at the workplace in the European Union . Safety Science 2011; 49 :558‐64. [ Google Scholar ]

Leymann 1990

• Leymann H. Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces . Violence and Victims 1990; 5 :119‐26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lippel 2011

• Lippel K, Vêzina M, Cox R. Protection of workers mental health in Quebec: do general duty clauses allow labour inspectors to do their job . Safety Science 2011; 49 :582‐90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Longo J, Sherman RO. Leveling horizontal violence . Nursing Management 2007; 38 ( 3 ):34‐51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lutgen‐Sandvik 2012

• Lutgen‐Sandvik P, Tracy SJ. Answering five key questions about workplace bullying: how communication scholarship provides thought leadership for transforming abuse at work . Mangement Communication Quarterly 2012; 26 ( 1 ):3‐47. [ Google Scholar ]

Lutgen‐Sandvik 2014

• Lutgen‐Sandvik P, Arsht SS. How unaddressed bullying affects employees, workgroups, workforces, and organizations: the widespread adversive effects of toxic communication climates . In: Lipinski J, Crothers L editor(s). Bullying in the workplace: causes, symptoms and remedies . New York: Routledge/Taylor& Francis Group, 2014:51‐65. [ Google Scholar ]

Mahlmeister 2009

• Mahlmeister L. Best practices in neonatal nursing: promoting positive team interactions and behaviours . The Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing 2009; 23 ( 1 ):8‐11. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Mangione 2001

• Mangione LL, Mangione TW. Workgroup context and the experience of abuse: an opportunity for prevention . Work 2001; 16 :259‐67. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Martin 2005

• Martin RJ, Hine DW. Development and validation of the Uncivil Workplace Behaviour Questionnaire . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2005; 10 :477‐90. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

McKenna 2003

• McKenna BG, Smith NA, Poole S, Coverdale JH. Horizontal violence: experiences of registered nurses in their first year of practice . Journal of Advanced Nursing 42; 1 :90‐6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

McMahon 2000

• McMahon L. Bullying and harassment in the workplace . International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 2000; 12 ( 6 ):384‐7. [ Google Scholar ]

Meglich‐Sespico 2007

• Meglich‐Sespico P, Faley RH, Knapp DE. Relief and redress for targets of workplace bullying . Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal 2007; 19 :31‐43. [ Google Scholar ]

Molloy 2006

• Molloy S, Henderson I. Conflict Resolution Training in the NHS . Journal of Perioperative Practice 2006; 16 ( 7 ):323‐6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore G. Audrey S. Barker M. Bond L. Bonell C. Hardeman W. Moore L. O’Cathain A. Tinati T. Wight D. Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. . MRC Population Health Science Research Network: London 2014. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Medical Research Council. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance . Available from: mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/complex‐interventions‐guidance/ (accessed 18 September 2015) 2008.
• Namie G, Namie R. US workplace bullying: some basic considerations and consultation interventions . Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 2009; 61 ( 3 ):202‐19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Namie G. Workplace bullying: escalated incivility . Available from: iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/workplace‐bullying‐escalated‐incivility/ 2003.
• Namie G, Namie R. Workplace bullying: how to address America's silent epidemic . Employee Rights and Employee Policy Journal 2004; 8 ( 2 ):315‐33. [ Google Scholar ]

Neidhammer 2007

• Neidhammer I, David S, Degioanni S. Economic activities and occupations at high risk for workplace bullying: results from a large‐scale cross‐sectional survey in the general working population in France . International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 2007; 80 :346‐53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng A. "Chasing Rainbows": challenging workplace bullying in Australia and the United States . Journal of Workplace Rights 2010; 15 ( 2 ):213‐28. [ Google Scholar ]

Nielsen 2008

• Nielsen MB, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. Sense of coherence as a protective mechanism against targets of bullying . Journal of occupational Health Psychology 2008; 13 ( 2 ):128‐36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Nielsen 2009

• Nielsen MB, Skogstad A, Matthiesen SB, Glasø L, Aasland MS, Notelaers G, et al. Prevalence of workplace bullying in Norway: comparisons across time and estimation methods . European Journal of Work and Educational Psychology 2009; 18 ( 1 ):81‐101. [ Google Scholar ]

Nielsen 2012

• Nielsen MB, Hetland J, Mattiesen SB, Einarsen S. Longitudinal relationships between workplace bullying and psychological distress . Scandanavian Journal of Work Environmental Health 2012; 38 ( 1 ):38‐46. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Nielsen 2013

• Nielsen MB. Bullying in work groups: the impact of leadership . Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 2013; 54 :127‐36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

O'Driscoll 1999

• O'Driscoll MP, Randall DM. Perceived organisational support, satisfaction with rewards, and employee job involvement and organisational commitment . Applied Psychology 1999; 48 ( 2 ):197‐209. [ Google Scholar ]

Olender‐Russo 2009

• Olender‐Russo L. Creating a culture of regard: an antidote for workplace bullying . Creative Nursing 2009; 15 ( 2 ):75‐81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Oluremi 2007

• Oluremi AB. Communication openness, conflict events and reactions to conflict in culturally diverse workgroups . Cross Cultural Management: An international Journal 2007; 14 ( 2 ):105‐24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quine L. Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: staff questionnaire survey . BMJ 1999; 318 :228‐2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quine L. Bullying In nursing . Journal of Psychology 2001; 6 ( 1 ):73‐84. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Quinlan 2009

• Quinlan E. New action research techniques using participatory theatre with health care workers . Action Research 2009; 8 ( 2 ):117‐33. [ Google Scholar ]

Ramsay 2003

• Ramsay CR, Matowe L, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE. Interrupted time series designs in health technology assessment: lessons from two systematic reviews of behavior change strategies . International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2003; 19 ( 4 ):613‐23. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Ramsay 2011

• Ramsay S, Troth A, Branch S. Workplace bullying: A group processes framework . Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology 2011; 84 :799‐816. [ Google Scholar ]

Rasmussen, 2011

• Rasmussen MB, Hansen T, Nelsen KT. New tools and strategies for the inspection of the psychosocial working environment: the experience of the Danish working Environment Authority . Safety Science 2011; 49 :565‐74. [ Google Scholar ]

Rayner 1999

• Rayner C. From research to implementation: finding leverage for prevention . International Journal of Manpower 1999; 20 ( 1/2 ):28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Royal College of Midwives. In Place of Fear: Recognising and Confronting the Problem of Bullying in Midwifery . Royal College of Midwives, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Resch M, Schubinski M. Mobbing ‐ prevention and management in organisations. . European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 1996; 5 ( 2 ):295‐307. [ Google Scholar ]

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

• The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) . Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Royal College of Nursing 2002

• Royal College of Nursing. Working Well . Royal College of Nursing, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saam NJ. Interventions in workplace bullying: a multilevel approach. . European Journal of Organisational Psychology 2010; 19 ( 1 ):51‐75. [ Google Scholar ]

Safe Work Australia 2012

• Safe Work Australia. The Australian Workplace Barometer: Report on psychosocial safety climate and worker health in Australia . Available from: safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/748/The‐Australian‐Workplace‐Barometer‐report.pdf 2012:96.

Salin 2008a

• Salin D. Organisational responses to workplace harassment: an exploratory study . Personnel Review 2008; 38 ( 1 ):26‐44. [ Google Scholar ]

Salin 2008b

• Salin D. The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource management: measures adopted and underlying organizational factors . Scandanavian Journal of Management 2008; 24 :221‐31. [ Google Scholar ]

Samnani 2012

• Samnani AK, Singh P. 20 years of workplace bullying research: a review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace . Aggression and Violent Behaviour 2012; 17 :581‐9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schat ACH, Kelloway EK. Effects of perceived control on the outcomes of aggression and violence . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2000; 5 ( 3 ):386‐402. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Schreurs 2010

• Schreurs B, Emmerik H, Notelaers G, Witte H. Job insecurity and employee health: the buffering potential of job control and job self‐efficacy . Work & Stress 2010; 24 ( 1 ):56‐72. [ Google Scholar ]

Schutte 1998

• Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Hall LE, Haggerty DJ, Cooper JT, Golden CJ, et al. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence . Personality and Individual Differences 1998; 25 :167‐77. [ Google Scholar ]

Sheehan 1999

• Sheehan M. Workplace bullying: responding with some emotional intelligence . International Journal of Manpower 1999; 20 ( 1/2 ):57‐69. [ Google Scholar ]

Shreeavtar 2002

• Shreeavtar R. Preventing workplace aggression and violence ‐ a role for occupational therapy . Work 2002; 18 :15‐22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Skogstad 2007

• Skogstad A, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. Organisational changes: a precursor of bullying at work . International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 2007; 10 ( 1 ):58‐94. [ Google Scholar ]

Spector 2007

• Spector PE, Coulter ML, Stockwell HG, Matz MW. Perceived violence climate: A new construct and its relationship to workplace physical violence and verbal aggression, and their potential consequences . Work and Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health and Organisations 2007; 21 ( 2 ):117‐30. [ Google Scholar ]

Speery 2009

• Speery L, Duffy M. Workplace mobbing: family dynamics and therapeutic considerations . American Journal of Family Therapy 2009; 37 ( 5 ):433‐42. [ Google Scholar ]

Srabstein 2008

• Srabstein J, Joshi P, Due P, Wright J, Leventhal B, Merrick J, et al. Prevention of public health risks linked to bullying: a need for a whole community approach. . International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 2008; 20 ( 2 ):185‐99. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stagg SJ, Sheridan D. Effectiveness of bullying and violence prevention programs a systematic review . American Association of Occupational Health Nurses 2010; 58 ( 10 ):419‐24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steen M. Conflict resolution for student midwives . Practising Midwife 2011; 14 ( 3 ):25‐7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Tehrani 1995

• Tehrani N. An integrated response to trauma in three post office businesses . Work and Stress 1995; 9 ( 4 ):380‐93. [ Google Scholar ]

Tehrani 2004

• Tehrani N. Bullying: a source of chronic post‐traumatic stress? . British Journal of guidance and Counselling 2004; 32 ( 3 ):357‐66. [ Google Scholar ]

Tehrani 2011

• Tehrani N. Workplace Bullying: the role for Counselling . In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL editor(s). Bullying and Harsasment in the Workplace Development in Theory, Research, and Practice . Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, 2011:381‐96. [ Google Scholar ]

UNISON 1997

• UNISON. UNISON members’ experience of bullying at work . London: UNISON, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]

van Heughten 2010

• Heughten K. Bullying of social workers: outcomes of a grounded study into impacts and interventions . British Journal of Social Work 2010; 40 ( 2 ):638‐55. [ Google Scholar ]

Vandekerckhove 2003

• Vandekerckhove W, Commers MSR. Downward workplace mobbing: a sign of the times . Journal of Business Ethics 2003; 45 :41‐50. [ Google Scholar ]

Vartia 1996

• Vartia M. The sources of bullying ‐ psychological work environment and organisational climate . European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 1996; 5 ( 2 ):203‐14. [ Google Scholar ]

Vartia 2011

• Vartia M, Leka S. Interventions for the prevention and management of bullying . In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL editor(s). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice . 2nd Edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011:359‐79. [ Google Scholar ]

Verbeek 2012

• Verbeek JH, Kateman E, Morata TC, Dreschler WA, Mischke C. Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 10 . [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006396.pub3] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Vessey 2009

• Vessey JA, Demarco RF, Gaffney DA, Budin WC. Bullying of staff registered nurses in the workplace: a preliminary study for developing personal and organizational strategies for the transformation of hostile to healthy workplace environments . Journal of Professional Nursing 2009; 25 ( 5 ):299‐306. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Vessey 2010

• Vessey JA, Demarco RF, DiFazio R. Bullying, harassment, and horizontal violence in the nursing workforce: the state of the science . Annual Review of Nursing Research 2010; 28 :133‐57. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Viitasara 2004

• Viitasara E. Violence in caring: risk factors, outcomes and support . Vol. 1 , Karolinska: National Institute of working Life, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]

Voelker 1996

• Voelker R. Postal Service tries to reverse violent image through employee assistance and team approach . Journal of the American Medical Association 1996; 275 ( 22 ):1710‐1. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Walrafen 2012

• Walrafen N, Brewer MK, Mulvenon C. Sadly caught up in the moment: an exploration of horizontal violence . Nursing Economics 2012; 30 ( 1 ):6‐12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wassell 2009

• Wassell JT. Workplace violence intervention effectiveness: a systematic literature review . Safety Science 2009; 47 :1049‐55. [ Google Scholar ]

Watson 1988

• Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS Scales . Journal of Poersonality and Social Psychology 1988; 54 :1063‐70. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber M. Federal Occupational Court establishes employer responsibilities: mobbing at the worksite [Mobbing am Arbeitsplatz]. Pflege Z 2009; 62 ( 7 ):421‐3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wilson 1991

• Wilson CB. Businesses suffer from workplace trauma . Personnel Journal 1991; 70 ( 7 ):47‐50. [ Google Scholar ]

World Health Organization 2008

• World Health Organization. Guideline: Incentives for Health Professionals . Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]

Yamada 2009

• Yamada D. Understanding and responding to bullying and related behaviours in healthcare places . Frontiers of Health Service Management 2009; 25 ( 4 ):33‐6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Zampeiron 2010

• Zampeiron A, Saralva M, Pranovi R, Lasaki A, Buja A. Survey on violence and aggression prevention and management strategies in European renal units . Journal of Renal Care 2010; 36 ( 2 ):60‐7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zapf D, Escartin J, Einarsen S, Hoel H, Vartia M. Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace . In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL editor(s). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice . Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Taylor & Frances, 2011:75‐105. [ Google Scholar ]

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Signs and Effects of Workplace Bullying

Sherri Gordon, CLC is a published author, certified professional life coach, and bullying prevention expert. She's also the former editor of Columbus Parent and has countless years of experience writing and researching health and social issues.

Rachel Goldman, PhD FTOS, is a licensed psychologist, clinical assistant professor, speaker, wellness expert specializing in eating behaviors, stress management, and health behavior change.

Gpointstudio/Image Source/Getty Images

• What Employers Can Do

Frequently Asked Questions

Workplace bullying is persistent mistreatment that occurs in the workplace. It can include behaviors such as verbal criticism, personal attacks, humiliation, belittling, and exclusion. It's important to note that anyone can be a bully or be bullied, regardless of the role they have in the workplace.

Unfortunately, bullying in the workplace is far from uncommon. According to a survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute, 30% of workers have directly experienced bullying while at work. People who work remotely were more likely to report such bullying, with 43.2% responding that they had been bullied on the job.  

Workplace bullying hurts the health and well-being of employees. It can also damage workplace productivity and performance. "Bullying's pernicious nature creates long-lasting scars that have an effect on the victim's sense of self-worth, self-assurance, and general mental health," says Azizi Marshall, LCPC , a licensed clinical professional counselor and founder of the Mental Health at Work Summit and Center for Creative Arts Therapy.

This article discusses some of the signs and effects of workplace bullying. It also covers its impact on the workplace and what people can do to help prevent this type of behavior.

Signs of Workplace Bullying

If you're a target of bullies in the workplace, you probably start each week with a pit of anxiety in your stomach. Then, you count down the days until the weekend or next vacation. Inappropriate behavior by adult bullies may include:

• Berating people
• Coercing people to do things they don't want to do
• Dismissing someone's efforts
• Embarrassing people in front of their employer, co-workers, or clients
• Excluding others
• Intimidating people
• Lying to others
• Making snide remarks
• Minimizing others' concerns
• Taking credit for other people's work
• Threatening others
• Criticizing others unfairly

Workplace bullying is not always overt or openly hostile. It can also take more subtle forms, including gaslighting , where the bully engages in abusive behaviors but then denies the abuse. The goal of gaslighting is to make the victim of bullying doubt their reality and experiences.

Subtle workplace bullying can hide in plain sight, but recognizing its more subtle signs can empower individuals to reclaim their worth.

According to Marshall, some of these more subtle types of workplace bullying can include:

• Deliberately excluding people from conversations, decision-making, or work-related events
• Purposely ignoring, disregarding, or avoiding someone, such as by "forgetting" to invite them to work meetings
• Concealing or distorting information to achieve personal goals
• Feigning ignorance, changing the subject, or canceling meetings to divert attention from an issue
• Emotionally manipulating people by using shame or guilt to cause feelings of inadequacy, undue responsibility, or unworthiness
• Undermining someone's work to hamper their progress or ability to succeed
• Pitting people against one another to create a competitive, divisive environment
• Changing someone's responsibilities to disrupt their work and interfere with their sense of purpose
• Creating unrealistic or unattainable expectations or constantly shifting expectations to ensure failure
• Unfairly criticizing people's work to hurt the other person's self-esteem

Effects of Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying can have a range of negative effects. Research on bullying in the workplace quantifies the personal consequences for the victim and the fiscal consequences that affect the company's bottom line.

Health Risks

The effects of workplace bullying don't end when you leave the office. Experiencing bullying can cause physical and psychological health problems, including high blood pressure, mood changes, panic attacks, stress , and ulcers.

People who are bullied at work may also experience physical symptoms such as headaches, muscle tension, and changes in appetite. Bullying can impact sleep quality and duration as well.

Workplace bullying can contribute to increased stress, low self-esteem , and feelings of anxiety and depression. "One's sense of security is undermined by ongoing unpleasant interactions, which can cause anxiety, tension, and even melancholy," Marshall says.

Researchers have found that the coworkers of those who are bullied also experience negative effects, even when they themselves are not bullied. One study showed that victims of bullying and those who witness it are more likely to receive a prescription for psychotropic medications such as antidepressants, tranquilizers, and sleeping pills.

Bullying in the workplace can increase the risk of negative physical health effects and lead to decreased mental well-being for both the victims of bullying and their co-workers.

Effect on Job Performance

"Bullying at work has a negative impact on a person's ability to do their job. Due to the mental discomfort brought on by the bullying, victims frequently exhibit decreased productivity, increased absenteeism, and difficulties concentrating," explains Marshall.

Bullied workers cannot perform their jobs to the best of their ability. Performance issues include:

• Inability to work or concentrate
• Loss of self-esteem
• Trouble making decisions
• Lower productivity

Bullied workers not only lose motivation, they lose time because they are preoccupied with:

• Avoiding the bully
• Networking for support
• Making plans to deal with the situation
• Ruminating about the situation
• Trying to defend themselves

Targets of bullying feel a sense of isolation.  Workplace bullying can leave the victim so traumatized that they feel powerless, disoriented, confused and helpless.

Changes in the Workplace

Workplace bullying has detrimental effects on employers, not just the victim and their co-workers who witness it. In addition to disrupting the work environment and impacting worker morale, it can also:

• Create a hostile work environment
• Impact workers compensation claims
• Promote absenteeism
• Reduce productivity
• Result in costly, and possibly embarrassing legal issues​

Other effects on the employer include:

• Additional costs to recruit and train new employees
• Erosion of employee loyalty and commitment
• Increased use of sick leave, health care claims, and staff turnover
• Increased risk of legal action
• Poor public image and negative publicity

Coping With Bullying in the Workplace

"To effectively respond to workplace bullying, it’s important to adopt an assertive and direct approach. Confronting the issue head-on and establishing clear consequences for unacceptable behavior is a must," explains Avigail Lev, PsyD , founder and director of the Bay Area CBT Center.

If you are being bullied at work, there are strategies that you can use to cope. Being proactive may help you feel better.

Set Boundaries

When a bully engages in abusive behavior, tell them what they have done and that it is unacceptable. Let them know that their behavior will not be tolerated and that if it occurs again, you will take action. Setting boundaries lets others know what type of behavior you are willing to accept. 

Marshall says that setting these boundaries to establish what is acceptable and improper can help you defend your rights and protect against future abuse.

Confront the Behavior

Once you establish a boundary, following through with the consequences is essential. Marshall suggests always remaining professional, avoiding retaliation, and utilizing "I" statements to assertively voice your concerns and address the specific behaviors that upset you.

If the abuse continues, call out the behavior the next time it happens. Ask them to leave until they can behave in a professional, work-appropriate manner. 

Therapist-Recommended Strategies

Other strategies that Lev recommends to cope with workplace bullying include:

• Detached empathy : It can be helpful to detach yourself emotionally from the other person's actions while maintaining a certain level of empathy. According to Lev, this allows people to become less reactive while staying grounded.
• Reverse DARVO: This self-defense strategy can be utilized to combat manipulation. "This involves recognizing and challenging the Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender tactics employed by the bully. It stands for Detach, Assert, Validate, and Observe. This helps people cultivate detached empathy and helps them stay non-reactive," Lev explains.
• The BIFF technique : BIFF stands for Brief, Informative, Friendly, and Firm. Lev suggests it can be an effective way to cope with gaslighting in the workplace. "When confronted with gaslighting, responding in a BIFF manner involves keeping interactions brief and to the point, providing factual information without engaging in lengthy debates, maintaining a friendly tone, and asserting your position firmly," she explains.

Keep Track of the Abuse

Whenever you feel that you have been bullied at work, document the details including the time and exactly what happened. Write down any witnesses who were present and save any documents or records that can corroborate the abuse.

Talk to Management or Human Resources

If you've tried resolving the bullying on your own without success, it is time to involve your employer. Check with your workplace employee handbook to learn more about what steps you will need to take to file a complaint.

Marshall notes, however, that not all companies are great at addressing bullying. In such instances, it may be helpful to get outside assistance from legal counsel or an employee assistance program.

Care for Yourself

In addition to taking decisive action to protect yourself from bullying, it is also important to take steps to care for yourself. Seek out social support , practice relaxation strategies for stress, and consider talking to a mental health professional if you are experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety, or distress.

Creating boundaries and directly confronting the behavior are two strategies that may stop bullies from targeting you. Recording and reporting the bullying is also important. You can also help care for yourself by seeking social support and talking to a therapist.

What Can Employers Do?

It's always in your best interest to confront workplace bullying and maintain a bullying-free workplace because prevention is more cost-effective than intervention or mediation. It's also the right thing to do if you care about your employees.

Workplaces can safeguard their employees' mental health and provide a pleasant and productive atmosphere for all by developing rules and procedures that condemn bullying, offering assistance options, and encouraging open communication.

Employers must offer education opportunities for managers, supervisors, and other authority figures, because the majority of workplace bullying comes from bosses. Strive to create a workplace environment that cultivates teamwork, cooperation, and positive interaction instead.

Employers should also take steps to reduce bullying in the workplace. Educate employees and managers about bullying and outline steps that workers can take if they are experiencing abuse in the workplace.

Workplace bullying can be openly hostile at times, but it can also take more subtle forms. In either case, it can take a serious toll on employee well-being and productivity. It is important to be able to recognize the signs of workplace bullying so that you can take action to protect yourself. Organizations can also take steps to reduce bullying, including helping employees learn how to respond when they witness someone being bullied at work.

Calling out the behavior and making it clear that it will not be tolerated are important actions, but it is also critical to care for yourself outside of the workplace. Talk to friends and loved ones, spend time doing things you enjoy, and look for ways to help relax. Talking to a therapist can also be helpful.

Check your employee handbook to see if it describes steps you should take to report bullying. This may involve talking to your manager or reporting the behavior to human resources (HR) so they can investigate. If your manager is the one engaging in bullying, you might need to report the behavior to HR or to someone who is a position higher up the chain of command.

Workplace bullying can involve a range of damaging actions that can involve verbal, nonverbal, psychological, or physical abuse. Examples can include threats, humiliation, excessive monitoring, unjustified criticism, intentionally lying about work duties, and intimidation.

Employers can help prevent bullying by making it a priority to create a supportive workplace and refusing to tolerate bullying behaviors. Co-workers can help by being supportive and speaking up if they witness abuse in the workplace.

Wu M, He Q, Imran M, Fu J. Workplace bullying, anxiety, and job performance: choosing between "passive resistance" or "swallowing the insult"? .  Front Psychol . 2020;10:2953. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02953

Workplace Bullying Institute. 2021 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey .

Nielsen MB, Magerøy N, Gjerstad J, Einarsen S. Workplace bullying and subsequent health problems . Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen . 2014;134(12-13):1233-1238. doi:10.4045/tidsskr.13.0880

Glambek M, Skogstad A, Einarsen S. Take it or leave: a five-year prospective study of workplace bullying and indicators of expulsion in working life .  Ind Health . 2015;53(2):160–170. doi:10.2486/indhealth.2014-0195

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Bullying in the workplace .

Lallukka T, Haukka J, Partonen T, Rahkonen O, Lahelma E. Workplace bullying and subsequent psychotropic medication: a cohort study with register linkages . BMJ Open . 2012;2(6). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001660

Robert F. Impact of workplace bullying on job performance and job stress .  J Manag Info . 2018;5(3):12-15. doi:10.31580/jmi.v5i3.123

Einarsen S, Skogstad A, Rørvik E, Lande ÅB, Nielsen MB. Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: a moderated mediation analysis .  Int J Hum Resour Manag . 2016;29(3):549-570. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1164216

By Sherri Gordon Sherri Gordon, CLC is a published author, certified professional life coach, and bullying prevention expert. She's also the former editor of Columbus Parent and has countless years of experience writing and researching health and social issues.

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Bullying in the workplace

Published by Sabrina Cook Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Bullying in the workplace"— Presentation transcript:

Human Resources Training

Performance Management Guide for Supervisors. Objectives  Understand necessity of reviews;  To define a rating standard across the Foundation for an.

Workplace Bullying and Harassment Training and Legal Duties [Insert Presenter Name] [Company Name] [Date]

Coaching and Performance Management

4/00/ © 2000 Business & Legal Reports, Inc. BLR’s Human Resources Training Presentations Dealing with Challenging Employees.

People Health Audit Frank Newman, C.H.R.L. Newman Human Resources  35 years HR experience  Finance Industry, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, Semi-Conductor,

Sexual and Other Unlawful Harassment

Sexual Harassment What Supervisors Need to Know. © Business & Legal Reports, Inc Session Objectives You will be able to: Understand legal and policy.

Toxic Behaviour, Toxic Situations… The Manager’s Role Presenter: Annie Shepherd Author: Susan McPhee When to Question, When to Act.

APAPDC National Safe Schools Framework Project. Aim of the project To assist schools with no or limited systemic support to align their policies, programs.

Customer ServiceMaking it Personal Lets work together to cut it out………….. Speaker Name & Title Supporting “Leading the Way”

STRESS COMPASSION FATIGUE BURNOUT Health Care Stress Workshop March 30,

WORKPLACE BULLYING Prevention and Skills to Recognise Key Factors in Your Workplace.

© BLR ® —Business & Legal Resources 1408 How to Manage Challenging Employees.

Presented by:. 22  Present and discuss Hunter Douglas’s approach to recognizing and preventing workplace bullying.  Explore opportunities to increase.

New Supervisors’ Guide To Effective Supervision

1 Core Competencies for Primary School Teachers in Crisis Contexts.

Solving the Top 5 Employee Discipline Issues 1 “piece by piece”

JOB APPLICATION PROCESS

Workplace Bullying and Harassment

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.

The Six Stages of Workplace Bullying

Research explains the predictable cycle of workplace abuse..

Posted June 24, 2020 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

• How to Handle Bullying
• Find a therapist to support kids or teens

Workplace bullying begins like a blister, small, and undetected. Over time, however, it can render targets immobile, fully engrossed in pain, and completely surprised by what transpired.

As a researcher and university professor, I have interviewed over 200 targets of workplace bullying, across 24 industries, 27 states, and 15 countries. Most of these individuals were unaware that they were under attack until deeply rooted in the battle. Many experienced relief when they were able to name the abuse and understand the stages of the bullying cycle.

According to Davenport, Schwartz, and Elliot, workplace bullying is “a malicious attempt to force a person out of the workplace through unjustified accusations, humiliation , general harassment, emotional abuse , and/or terror.” This may result in mental trauma and physical distress fostered by a toxic culture that tolerates and, at times, propels the abuse. Though workplace bullying catches targets off guard, the cycle is highly predictable. It unfolds over distinct stages, which were first documented by organizational psychologist Heinz Leymann and later expanded upon by other researchers, including Duffy and Sperry and the Namies at the Workplace Bullying Institute.

Though each target’s experience is unique, the typical trajectory is described below.

1. Target Identification

According to the Namies at the Workplace Bullying Institute, targets of workplace abuse share common characteristics. They are highly competent, creative, and top performers. They’re uninterested in office politics and possess a benevolent worldview. Targets tend to be highly respected in their work community, and colleagues often seek them out for advice.

In contrast, bullies tend to be narcissistic , lacking in job expertise, and adept at taking credit for the efforts of others. Bullies often operate behind a veil of secrecy, seeking control through manipulation, gossip, sabotage, gaslighting , and isolation. Bullies are often threatened by targets’ competence, creativity , and social capital and thus go to work attempting to push them out.

2. Jealousy and Battle Plans

Once the bully identifies his target, he starts to plot her dismissal. He often begins by ingratiating himself, pretending to be a friend and ally in an effort to encourage the target to divulge personal information that can later be used as ammunition. The bully works to spot the target’s strengths, so in subsequent stages, he can attack them as weaknesses in an effort to erode the target’s confidence . For example, if the target is an exemplary writer, the bully may take away her writing responsibilities, citing incompetence.

3. Precipitating Event

The precipitating event is not the cause of the workplace bullying but rather the bully’s invitation to launch the attack. It may be something as simple as the target securing a promotion one of the bully’s friends was vying for or a successful initiative the target spearheaded that inadvertently stole the bully’s spotlight. The bully uses this event as an opportunity to stir unrest and recruit bystanders to participate in the abuse.

4. Underground Battle

The initial attacks are most often quiet, in the form of lunchtime gossip, insincere showings of concern, like “Trevor sure looks tired,” and whispers of incompetence, such as “Did you notice the mistakes Shanel made during this morning’s presentation?” Next, the bully may begin to secretly interview colleagues regarding the target’s personality , planting seeds of doubt and disdain, while advising them to keep their distance in an effort not to become “part of the problem.”

Studies show that bullies frequently contact Human Resources to express their concerns regarding the target’s performance and mental health. Often, HR will initially rebuff, citing the target’s stacks of accolades and accomplishments, yet will eventually relent and start the documentation process that the bully knows is necessary for the target’s termination. In addition, most bullies will share their concerns with upper management , creating employment protection in the event the target later attempts to go over their head to solicit help.

5. Escalating Attacks and Mobbing

HR may place the target on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), offering vague reasonings and unattainable goals . At this point, rumors will often intensify, the sabotage increases, and the target will be uninvited to meetings and social events and then be penalized for missing information. Witnessing the abuse and fearful of being targeted next, most bystanders join in on the bullying and cut all friendly contact with the target.

As the stress compounds and the isolation intensifies, the target’s feelings of hopelessness can be overwhelming. The WBI 2012 Study of Workplace Bullying found that most targets incur stress-induced physical and mental suffering that may include hypertension, gastrointestinal issues, migraines , anxiety , depression , panic attacks, and symptoms of PTSD . At this point, many targets appeal to the bully’s superiors for help, yet due to the bully’s earlier priming , the target’s concerns are often minimized and dismissed.

6. Final Resignation, Coverup, and Recovery

After approximately 6 to 12 months of unrelenting emotional abuse, 74 percent of targets will be transferred, terminated, or constructively discharged. In an effort to cover up the abuse, some organizations offer compensation packages in exchange for signing a Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA), forever silencing the target’s story.

At this stage, most targets are left unemployed, financially strapped, and without health insurance, at the very moment when their health is most vulnerable. Following their departure, the bully may continue the character assassination, hampering the target’s efforts to secure new employment. Instead of addressing the toxic culture that sanctioned the bullying, some organizations will engage in Orwellellian “doublespeak,” such as “the stress was too much for him,” or “we wish we could say more, but it is a Human Resources issue.”

However, all is not lost. The target will find hope and redemption by securing a job at a new organization, with an innovative culture, whose values and mission align with her own. Many targets also find healing by lobbying for the enactment of protective workplace legislation and advocating for others who have had their dignity stripped at work.

It is important to understand the trajectory of workplace abuse because that which can be identified can be stopped. Bullying can be called out, bystanders can become upstanders, and creativity can thrive in the context of an organizational culture that insists on psychological safety on the job.

Copyright (2020). Dorothy Courtney Suskind, Ph.D.

Carbo, J. A. (2017). Understanding, defining, and eliminating workplace bullying: Assuring dignity at work. New York: Routledge.

Davenport, N., Schwartz, R. D., & Elliott, G. P. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing.

Duffy, M., & Sperry, L. (2012). Mobbing: Causes, consequences, and solutions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5(2), 119–126.

Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2011). The bully-free workplace: Stop jerks, weasels, and snakes from killing your organization. John Wiley & Sons.

The Healthy Workplace Bill. https://healthyworkplacebill.org/ .

Workplace Bullying Institute. https://workplacebullying.org/ .

Dorothy Suskind, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Education and Counseling Department at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia. Her research focuses on workplace bullying.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

404 Not found

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Confronting Workplace Bullying

This sample presentation is intended for presentation to supervisors and other individuals who manage employees. It is designed to be presented by an individual who is knowledgeable in employee relations and specifically in workplace bullying issues and in the employer’s own policies and practices. This is a sample presentation that must be customized to match the employer’s own culture, policies and practice.  

For the best experience, download this presentation using Google Chrome.

Confronting Workplace Bullying  (PPT)

Related Content

Rising Demand for Workforce AI Skills Leads to Calls for Upskilling

As artificial intelligence technology continues to develop, the demand for workers with the ability to work alongside and manage AI systems will increase. This means that workers who are not able to adapt and learn these new skills will be left behind in the job market.

Employers Want New Grads with AI Experience, Knowledge

A vast majority of U.S. professionals say students entering the workforce should have experience using AI and be prepared to use it in the workplace, and they expect higher education to play a critical role in that preparation.

Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

​An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.

HR Daily Newsletter

New, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

• Board of Directors
• Position Statements
• Communications
• Constitution, Bylaws & Resolutions
• Emergency Management
• Hazardous Materials
• Human Relations
• Tech Council
• Terrorism and Homeland Security
• Training and Education Development
• Urban Search & Rescue
• Wildland Fire Policy
• COS Election
• COS Resources
• Coaching Program
• Emergency Vehicle Management
• About EMS Section
• Recommended Reading
• FRM Conference
• Heart Safe Community Awards
• James O. Page Award
• EFO Election
• Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP)
• EFO Symposium & Awards
• Federal & Military Fire Services
• FLSS Election
• FLSS Resources
• Fire Alarm Training Series
• FLSS Awards
• Industrial Fire & Safety
• Metro Chiefs
• Meet the SHSS Board
• SHSS Election
• SHSS Resources
• SHSS Awards
• Volunteer & Combination Officers
• Bugle Partners
• Bugle Program
• Careers at IAFC
• Career Center
• International Fire Service Research Center and Policy Institute
• Chief Officers
• Company Officers
• Conferences
• Officer Development Program Leadership Development Certification Series
• IFP Frequently Asked Questions
• Online Learning
• IAFC Academy
• Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant & Substance Abuse Program
• Technology Council
• IAFC Frequency Coordination
• UAS Toolkit
• Department Administration
• Fire Prevention
• Lithium-Ion and Energy Storage Systems
• Large-Scale Response
• Our Facilitators
• LMA Conference
• Services & Products
• Wellness/Fitness Program Summary
• Candidate Physical Ability Test
• Suppression News
• Fire Adapted News
• Wildland Landscapes News
• Wildland Policy News
• News Details
• Ready Set Go Departments
• Position Details
• Wildland Events
• Wildland Resource
• Wildland News
• All Resources
• Buyer's Guide
• Consulting Services
• Grant Funding
• Affordable Care Act
• Federal Taxation
• Homeland Security
• Volunteer and Combination
• Wildland Fire
• Contact NMAS
• Hurricane Preparation/Response
• Chief's Edge
• Community Risk Reduction
• Fire-Rescue International
• Fire-Rescue Med
• Hazmat Conference
• Symposium in the Sun
• Technology Summit International
• WUI Conference
• Upcoming Events
• Life Membership
• Update Profile
• Member Benefits
• Get Involved
• KnowledgeNet
• Bugle Brief
• Daily Dispatch
• Topics & Tools /
• All Resources /
• Resource Single

This toolkit is a collection of policies, tips, tools and resources for fire and emergency service departments about the prevention of bullying in the workplace.

This resource is a mix of existing and new resources from the IAFC, other fire service organizations, private industry and local model practices and SOPs. They range from simple, no-cost, common-sense solutions to those that are more resource-intensive.

Sample Policies and Resources

• Devon and Somerset (UK)
• Pend Oreille County, Washington (USA)
• Threat Management Policy Example (City of San Diego)
• Harassment Prevention Policy (Austin, TX, Fire Department)
• Emergency Responder Crisis Text Line (Colorado First Responders)
• National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace (Mental Health Commission of Canada)
• Link between bullying and substance abuse
• Using the Annual Performance Evaluation to Reduce Harassment in Your Workplace (Lexipol)

Legislation

• Healthy Workplace Bill
• Ontario Government Introduces Workplace Violence Legislation

Other Organizations

• Workplace Bullying Institute
• American Psychological Association, Resources for Employers Regarding Bullying  - a collection of workplace bullying resources, including articles and research abstracts, book recommendations, useful statistics and links to other high-quality resources.

Tools for the Family

• Cyberbullying Warning Signs (Cyberbullying Research Center)
• The Bully Project
• Bully Defense Tools - A Resource for Kids, Parents & Teachers
• Bullying Facts (Medicinenet)
• Bullying and Cyberbullying (Helpguide)
• K-12 is Where Future Bullies Practice
• National Association of People Against Bullying - A non-profit designed to advocate on behalf of bullied children and their families. Has a crisis line, bully statistics , current stories in the news and offers free speaking engagements.
• Stop Bullying Now
• Responding to Cyberbullying: Top Ten Tips for Teens

Training Resources

• Bullet Points Regarding Hazing Bullying Pranks, Policy (J. Curt Varone)
• Addressing Workplace Bullying From the Witness Perspective - Recording + PowerPoint (Dr. Sabrina Ricks)
• This American Life - Amsterdam Fire Department  
• Don't Let Judgement & Bullying Keep You From Winning Life! (Dr. Candice McDonald)

Research Papers

• Bullying at the Fire Station? Perceptions Based on Gender, Race and Sexual Orientation (American Journal of Social Science)
• Workplace Violence and Harassment: A European Picture (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work)
• Understanding Cyberbullying and Where We Go From Here (Chapter out of The Handbook of Research on Cyberbullying and Online Harassment in the Workplace)
• Bullying: Fire and EMS's tragedy and disgrace (FireRescue1)
• Children who experience trauma are more likely to get bullied or bully others (Consumer Affairs)
• Bosses who bully can negatively impact workplace safety, study shows (Safety + Health)
• Bullying by subordinates in the fire service (FireRescue1)
• Hazing in fire academies: Legal and practical considerations (FireRescue1)
• How to Complete a Log for Workplace Harassment (Chron.com)
• Firefighter probie problems: How this stressful period can demotivate members (FireRescue1)
• We Must Make a Change: Ending Harassment in the Fire Service (FireEngineering)
• Confronting Workplace Violence in the Fire Service (FireChief.com)
• Enough is Enough: 5 Ways to End Bullying in Fire and EMS (FireRescue1.com)
• Yes, Bullying and Harassment and Violence are Alive in the Firehouse
• Bullying: Does It Really Matter? (Dr. Candice McDonald)
• The tragedy and disgrace of bullying in fire and EMS
• How fire chiefs can end bullying and harassment
• Rape, harassment and retaliation in the U.S. Forest Service: Women firefighters tell their stories
• #MeToo and Sexual Violence in the U.S. Fire Service
• Think Twice: Harassment in the Fire Station
• They reported sexual harassment. Then the retaliation began
• 7 steps to an inclusive fire department culture
• Don't Leave Workplace Civility to Chance Civility (Leadership Now)
• 5 Reasons Firefighter Training on Harassment Fails (by Linda Willing for FireChief.com)
• "Exploring Workplace Bullying in New Hampshire Fire Departments" (David F. Emanuel, Durham (NH) Fire Department, EFO Paper)
• 20 Subtle Signs of Workplace Bullying (HR Insights Blog) & Table defining subtle vs. overt bullying and more
• Definitions of Workplace Bullying The article defines bullying, outlines how to document if you are being bullied and how to report bullying in the workplace.
• Bullies at Work: Stamping Out Abuse in the Workplace (Manfred Kets de Vries)
• Workplace bullying widespread at fire departments, survey shows
• Retention of Internal Stakeholders in the U.S. Volunteer Fire Service
• Bullying in the Workplace Causes, Symptoms, and Remedies

Special thanks to the Safety, Health and Survival Section  (SHSS), Volunteer and Combination Officers Section (VCOS) , the Human Relations Committee , International Association of Women in Fire & EMS  (iWomen) and others who've championed this cause and contributed to this toolkit.

• Safety & Health
• Human Relations, Diversity & Inclusion
• Featured Tools & Topics
• Featured Safety & Health
• Featured Personnel
• Featured Learn & Develop
• {{Title}} Remove

No categories have been created yet.

• Featured Active Shooter Toolkit
• Featured Blog
• Featured Communications & Technology
• Featured Conf & Events
• Featured Department Administration
• Featured EMS
• Featured FDX Blog
• Featured FDX home
• Featured FDX Resource
• Featured Fire Prevention
• Featured Grant News
• Featured Hazmat
• Featured HFC home
• Featured HFC Training & Resources
• Featured HFC Transport & Commods
• Featured Home (IAFC)
• Featured Hurricanes
• Featured iChiefs
• Featured iChiefs List
• Featured Large Scale Response
• Featured Latest (IAFC)
• Featured Leadership
• Featured Learn & Develop
• Featured Learn & Develop Courses & Training
• Featured Legislative News
• Featured Lithium Battery
• Featured Opioid, Stimulant & Substance Abuse
• Featured PDC Reading Recommendations
• Featured Press Releases
• Featured Research
• Featured Safety & Health
• Featured Smart Alarm Choices
• Featured Tools & Topics
• Featured Traffic Safety
• Featured Volunteer
• Featured Wildland
• Featured Fire Adapted
• Featured Resilient Landscapes
• Featured Supression
• Featured Wildland Policy
• Featured WS A-RIT
• featured-vws-a-rit
• Active Shooter
• Frequency Coordination
• Interoperability
• Narrowbanding
• Public Safety Broadband Network
• Community Relations
• Customer Service
• Marketing & Media
• Crisis Communication
• Data & Analysis
• Economic Environment
• Fundraising
• Legal Issues
• Human Resources
• Recruitment2
• Volunteer/Career Relations
• Information Technology
• LODD, PSOB & Ceremonies
• Strategic Planning
• Epidemics/Emerging Diseases
• Fire-based & Private EMS
• Firefighter Rehab
• (Lightweight) Construction
• Alarms and Detectors
• Building Codes
• Extinguishers
• Fire Inspections
• Public Education
• Government Relations
• State Legislation, Regulations
• Lithium Battery
• Transport Air
• Transport Highway
• Transport Pipeline
• Transport Rail
• Transport Water
• Human Relations, Diversity & Inclusion
• IAFC Info/News
• IAFC Partnerships
• Organizational
• Homeland Security/Terrorism
• Natural Disasters
• state: Florida
• state: Georgia
• state: Louisiana
• state: Mississippi
• state: North Carolina
• state: South Carolina
• state: Texas
• state: Virginia
• Generational Differences
• Leadership Styles
• Motivating People
• Learn & Develop
• Professional Development
• Training, Capabilities & Competencies
• Fire Behavior
• Tech Rescue
• Labor/Management Relations
• Protected content
• Safety & Health
• Traffic Safety
• Recruitment
• Fire-Adapted
• Resilient Landscapes
• Suppression
• Bugle ptnr 3
• Bugle ptnr 4
• Bugle ptnr 5
• Cardiac TK org supporters
• COVID Vaccine Comments
• Professional Development Committee
• Project - Whole Community
• Project ALERT
• Project FSTAR
• Project HFC
• Project VWS
• Project: NFIRS
• Project: Opioid
• Project: PERC
• Project: SafeQuickClear
• Section COS
• Section EFO
• Section EMS
• Section EVMS
• Section FedMil
• Section FLSS
• Section Industrial
• Section SHS
• Section VCOS
• USR Committee
• USR Purpose
• Guide/ toolkit/ template
• 1-pager/ summary/ infographic
• Code/ regulation/ advisory
• Field operating guide
• Presentation
• Public education material
• Report/ publication
• Strategy development tool
• Canadian Division
• Communications Committee
• Company Officers Section
• Constitution Bylaws Resolutions Committee
• Eastern Division
• Elections Committee
• Emergency Management Committee
• Emergency Vehicle Management Section
• EMS Section
• Environmental Sustainability Committee
• Executive Fire Officers Section
• Fed/Mil Fire Services Section
• Fire Life Safety Section
• Great Lakes Division
• Hazardous Materials Committee
• Hazmat Fusion Center
• Human Relations Committee
• IAFC Foundation
• IAFC On Scene
• Industrial Fire Safety Section
• Metro Chiefs Section
• Missouri Valley Division
• National Safety Culture Change Initiative
• New England Division
• Policy Institute
• Program Planning Committee
• Ready Set Go
• Safety Health Survival Section
• Southeastern Division
• Southwestern Division
• Terrorism and Homeland Security Committee
• Volunteer Combination Officers Section
• Western Division
• Whole Communities
• Wildland Fire Policy Committee

Related Resources

• A Prepared and Resilient Fire and Emergency Medical Services - Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2024-2027 read more
• Health & Wellness Guide Firefighter Cancer Basics Texas Fire Chiefs Association Our greatest resources to combat cancer in the fire service are information and education. These resources are available in multiple areas but not everyone knows where to find them. This Guide, created to assist Texas Fire Departments ... read more
• Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Firefighter Turnout Gear Textiles Exposed to Abrasion, Elevated Temperature, Laundering, or Weathering Summary: To investigate the extent to which physical stressors could change PFAS concentrations in firefighter gear, this NIST TN quantified the concentrations of 51 PFAS across 20 firefighter gear textiles following exposure to abrasion, elevated temperature, laundering, or weathering. Changes in ... read more
• Nov 2 Helping Members Find Their Spark Through Mentoring Nov 2-3, 2024 Fitchburg WI
• Nov 14 Symposium in the Sun 2024 Nov 14-17, 2024 Clearwater FL
• Aug 13 Fire-Rescue International - 2025 Aug 13-15, 2025 Orange County Convention Center Orlando FL
• U.S. Congress Proposes 10% Cut to AFG and SAFER Grant Programs March 22, 2024
• Reducing Stairs in Residential Buildings Higher Than Three Stories Creates Escape Hazards for Occupants and Inhibits Vital Emergency Response Operations March 15, 2024
• Passing of VCOS Immediate Past Chair Chief Charles Flynn March 14, 2024

• Terms of Use & Copyright
• Privacy Policy
• IAFC Logo Usage Policy
• Discrimination & Harassment Policy

8251 Greensboro Drive, Suite 650, McLean, VA 22102 | Tel: 703-273-0911 © 1999 - 2024 International Association of Fire Chiefs. All Rights Reserved.

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

11 templates

solar eclipse

25 templates

26 templates

kinesiology

23 templates

8 templates

Bullying Presentation templates

Bullying consists of repeated intentional behaviors that cause physical or emotional harm to a victim. it is, therefore, a serious problem that should be treated with the seriousness that the subject deserves. thus, we have selected those google slides themes and powerpoint templates that address this topic for you to have at your disposal if you need to make a presentation on the subject. choose the template that best suits your content, edit, and participate in raising awareness about bullying to make the world a nice place for everyone..

Cyber Bullying Thesis Defense

Now that the center of children’s social lives has shifted to the internet, it’s very important to raise awareness on cyberbullying. This template is the perfect resource to give a lesson on how to identify and stop it and it has a innovative design that will catch your student’s attention....

International Day against Bullying at School including Cyberbullying

The first Thursday of November holds the International Day against Bullying at School Including Cyberbullying, and we think it's a great idea because every kid deserves a good education and well-being and because... violence is bad, period! This blue-colored template is ideal for presentations on this topic. The illustrations, although...

Bullying Infographics

One of the main problemas that schools need (must!) tackle is bullying. Otherwise, children might develop insecurities and that can turn into a traumatic experience or something that they have to deal with for the rest of their lives. In order to make your audience realize the importance of this...

World Day of Bullying Prevention Activities

May 2 is a very important day in schools and all kinds of education centers. On this day we celebrate the World Day of Bullying Prevention, an observation dedicated to raise the awareness on the importance of identifying bullying and stopping it. Have you ever experienced or witnessed bullying? These...

Anti-Bullying Campaign: Stop the Hate!

Advocating for a better and kinder world starts with teaching children about tolerance and respect. Prepare an anti-bullying campaign and spread an inspiring message to your students. This template is full of children’s illustrations and it’ll convey the anti-bullying message clearly. Edit the slides and spread awareness to help create...

Practical Life Subject for Middle School - 6th Grade: Bullying Prevention

One of the situations that require the most immediate action at school is a case of bullying. It breaks everyone's heart to see a child being rejected by their classmates. To prevent this serious problem, it is important to make it clear to students that bullying is unacceptable and to...

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

Cyber Bullying Infographics

The internet is becoming an important part of our social lives, but unfortunately that is the new way bullies are doing their bad deeds. If you are giving an informative speech on cyberbullying and you need to present data in a visual way, take a look at our editable infographics....

Stop Bullying!

When it comes to bullying, there’s more people involved than just the person who perpetrates it. Specially in schools, teachers are the adults responsible of watching for harmful conducts and stopping them. But in order to take on this role, teachers must be aware of all the shapes that bullying...

Effects of Bullying

Bullying is a widespread problem in schools across the world. If left untackled, it can damage a child’s sense of security and leave scarring consequences. Use this new medical template to raise awareness and join the fight against bullying.

World Day of Bullying Prevention Activities Infographics

World Day of Bullying Prevention is a great initiative to raise awareness about this problem and how to prevent it. These activities infographics template can help you put together something amazing for this special day! With colorful illustrations to make the subject more approachable, there are slides you can customize...

Practical Life Subject for Middle School - 6th Grade: Bullying Prevention Infographics

Download the Practical Life Subject for Middle School - 6th Grade: Bullying Prevention Infographics template for PowerPoint or Google Slides and discover the power of infographics. An infographic resource gives you the ability to showcase your content in a more visual way, which will make it easier for your audience...

Practical Life Subject for High School - 9th Grade: Bullying Prevention

Bullying is an evil that afflicts our society and mainly affects elementary and high school students. As a teacher, it is your duty to be very attentive and prevent this problem from occurring in your classes. Discover this complete template that we put at your disposal so that you can...

International Day against Bullying at School including Cyberbullying Infographics

Bullying at school and cyberbullying are huge problems that we still face today. To help combat this, International Day Against Bullying at School was established in 2016. So, don't be a bully or contribute to it! Show your support by presenting about this important matter, use this set of infographics...

School Violence Prevention Campaign

Schools are intended to be a safe and nurturing environment for students to learn, grow, and thrive in. Sadly, it isn't always the case, as issues like bullying or cases of parents hitting teachers make the news nore than ever. This must stop, and we need a solid prevention campaign....

Prevention of Child Violence Project Proposal Plan

It should not be a taboo subject: child violence exists and we must fight it. If you are developing a project on how to prevent child violence, how about showing your ideas in the form of a presentation? This way, everything you want to convey will be clearer. This formal...

Workplace Harassment Meeting

Labor harassment is a reality. When this type of situation occurs, the most important thing is to make the problem visible, so that solutions can be applied. However, solving an event does not prevent it from happening again, so what is the best way to proceed? As this is such...

Action and Prevention of Child Abuse

Child abuse is a profoundly distressing subject that society must address. Thus, creating effective measures for prevention, detection, and response to this issue should be a shared priority. As a result, Google Slides and PPT presentations are useful tools that can help professionals and parents recognize signs of child abuse...

Dealing with Stigma and Discrimination in the Workplace

Stigma and discrimination can have a significant impact on an individual's mental health and well-being, especially when it occurs in the workplace. It can lead to feelings of isolation, shame, and anxiety, and can ultimately affect job performance and satisfaction. Of course, nobody wants that, so here's where this template...

• Page 1 of 2

New! Make quick presentations with AI

Slidesgo AI presentation maker puts the power of design and creativity in your hands, so you can effortlessly craft stunning slideshows in minutes.

Conflict: How to Deal With Bullying in the Workplace

Apr 06, 2019

400 likes | 613 Views

Conflict: How to Deal With Bullying in the Workplace. Raul Dinzey Early Resolution and Conciliation Division April 28, 2010. Overview. Background Information Identifying Action plan Dealing with Bullying Where to get help. Objectives. Identify the indicators of bullying problems

Share Presentation

• role playing
• raul dinzey early resolution
• employee assistance
• situation b supervisor bullying
• upper level management
• disabilities act

Presentation Transcript

Conflict:How to Deal With Bullying in the Workplace Raul Dinzey Early Resolution and Conciliation Division April 28, 2010

Overview • Background Information • Identifying • Action plan • Dealing with Bullying • Where to get help

Objectives • Identify the indicators of bullying problems • List the differences between bullying and harassment • Identify issues associated with workplace bullying & how they may turn into EEO complaints • Gain tips on where to find a help • Identify the elements needed for a follow-up plan

Statistics on Bullying • 37% of the workplace has been bullied • 72% of bullies are bosses • 57% of targets are female • Bullying happens four times more than illegal harassment • 62% of employees ignore the problem

Workplace Bullying Defined • Repeated and unwanted actions by an individual or group intending to intimidate harass, degrade or offend • Abuse or misuse of power • Bullying is psychological violence

Signs of Workplace Bullying • Abuse of Power • Threatening • Intimidation • Embarrassing • Undermining

More Details • Workplace bullying has been on the rise lately • Bullies are clever tend to have a Jekyll & Hyde type of personality • Will use shame guilt and fear to control and silence victims • Abuse power use amoral behavior and deception • Fear can hold you captive, hope can set you free • "All it needs for evil to prosper is for people of goodwill to do nothing" (Edmund Burke)

Background on Bullying • Motivation- the feeling of power they get from making someone else feel bad • Workplace bullying is about • Power, control, superiority, arrogance, prejudice, ignorance, most of all immaturity and insecurity • What does it look like? • Deliberate attempt to control or undermine • Verbally abusive, critical, loud attacks on your character attempts to humiliate and intimidate

Workplace Bulling Defined • Repeated & unwanted actions by an individual or group intending to intimidate, harass, degrade or offend • Abuse or misuse of power • Bullying is psychological violence

Should Complaints of bullying be Mediated? • What is the outcome you are seeking? • To make the “bully” a better person? • Behavior modification? • Acknowledgement of an offense & apology • Other? • The aim of mediation is not to change the bully inside out, it is to change or modify the behavior in the workplace so that morale & production are not impacted

Identifying The Signs • Deliberate attempts to control or undermine you • Belittle insult and sometimes threaten you • Criticism and allegations without validity • Verbally abusive, yelling and criticizing you Impact-Effect • You feel frightened, angry, ashamed and embarrassed

Offensive Behavior • Behaviors • Temper tantrum- Loud outbursts • Hurtful • Anger • Resentment • What pushes your buttons?

What’s EEO Law • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 • (Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin • Age Discrimination in employment Act of 1967 • (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years old or older • Title I & Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act • Protects discrimination vs. qualified individuals with disabilities • Sections 501 & 505 of the Rehabilitation Act • Prohibits discrimination vs. qualified

EEO Law • EEO Law Protection • Harassment/Hostile work Environment • Retaliation • Workplace violence issues • Lawful vs. unlawful bullying

EEO Law Charges Dealing With EEO Cases • Race • Color • Religion • Sex • National origin • Disability • Age • *Hostile Work Environment

Bullying as EEO Discrimination A Hostile Work environment consists of: • An unwelcome act that can be physical or verbal behavior • Based on employee’s protected status • That is sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a hostile, offensive or abusive work environment

Retaliation • Must have previously engaged in protected activity under title VII, the ADE or the Rehabilitation/ADA • Includes participation through testimony, investigation, at hearing or litigation proceeding

Harassment • Can be either hostile work environment or quid pro quo • Unwelcome verbal or physical conduct based on one or more of an individual’s protected bases under Title VII, ADEA, ADA or other statutes

Bullying Vs. Harassment

Myths & More • You do not need to find out about workplace bullying because it may never happen to you • You do not need to be warned about your car being stolen because you always lock it • It may never happen to you - but it could because every day it does happen to someone • You may not like to think it will happen but what will you do - if it does?

Examples • Being shouted at or humiliated & target of practical jokes • Blame without justification • Exclusion or social isolation • Physical intimidation (proximal) • Excessive micro- managing • Purposely withholding vital information

Evaluate the Situation • What is really going on? • Do you feel intimated, frightened, angry or abused? • Are other employees being threatened? • Talk to your co-workers check out how they are feeling?

The Effect of Bullying • Absenteeism • Decreased productivity • Manifestation of illness • High turnover • Increased accidents on the job • Violence

Observe Scenario& Role Playing • Observe Scenario • Conduct Role Playing Exercise • Discuss highlights

What do you do? • Regain control • Plan for action • Take action • Get help

Situation A Co-Worker Bullying A coworker was picking on her, and expressing fear that something serious might happen. For several weeks, the same coworker has been making statements such as: “You took credit for my work and you're spreading rumors that I'm no good.” If you ever get credit for my work again, that will be the last time you take credit for anybody's work. I'll make sure of that. Her computer files have been altered on several occasions and she suspects it's the same coworker. What do you do?

Situation B Supervisor Bullying Your supervisor has been demonstrating demeaning behavior towards you. Constantly speaking with you in a rude manner, criticizing you publicly in front of other employees. For several weeks, he has been making statements such as: “Why can’t you get things right?.” If you ever get credit for my work again, that will be the last time you take credit for anybody's work. I'll make sure of that. What do you do?

Action Plan • Do Your Homework • Find out everything you can about bullying • Overcome misperceptions that someone is a tough manager or rough around the edges • Practice self- affirmation and self- assertion • Ask for help- from Early Resolution and conciliation Division

Regain Control • Recognize you are being bullied • Overcome misperceptions that someone is a tough manager or rough around the edges • Inform upper level management

Take Action • Do not ignore the bullying • Keep a journal or a log- seek out patterns which will help to establish intent • Establish a paper trail- memos, letters, emails, etc keep copies at home • Document when criticisms and or allegations are made, provide details etc • Stand up for yourself—Seek help from Human Resources, Early Resolution and Conciliation • Know when to leave- develop exit strategy

Stand- Up For Yourself • Do not play their game • Do not stoop to their level, or allow them to push your “buttons” trying to get a reaction • Do not let someone walk on you • Keep interactions professional and respectful • Find your voice- • Tell them how their behavior makes you feel • What the consequences if it continues • Say what you mean

Useful Phrases • "The purpose of bullying is to hide inadequacy; bullying is a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.""Your criticisms and allegations lack substantive and quantifiable evidence." • “Sounds like you're making fun of me. Are you?” The usual replies to this direct approach is denial, “I'm only joking.”

Things to Remember • Bullying is an obsessive compulsive behavior • See your Doctor if you are having anxiety and stress due to bullying

Dynamics of Conflict What Happens If Conflict Goes Unresolved? • Intense Feelings • Positions Harden • Dehumanizing Occurs • Desire to punish Emerges • Communication Deteriorates

References • www.bullyonline.org • www.dumblittleman.com • www.about.com • www.impactfactory.com • http://bullyinginstitute.org • USDA Handbook on Workplace Violence and Prevention Office of Human Capital • Employee Assistance Program • “Bully in sight” How to predict, resist, challenge and combat workplace bullying by Tim Field.

Closing Comments & Questions • Workplace Bullying can affect your home life and workplace • Take Action and get help • Questions

Contact Information Early Resolution & Conciliation Division 202-720-7664 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 4029-S Mail Stop 9073 Washington, DC 20250 [email protected]

• More by User

DEFINITION, TYPES AND PREVALENCE OF SCHOOL BULLYING AND VIOLENCE

Peter K Smith Unit for School and Family Studies Goldsmiths College University of London [email protected] DEFINITION, TYPES AND PREVALENCE OF SCHOOL BULLYING AND VIOLENCE Definitions of violence Definition of bullying Types of violence and bullying

1.55k views • 28 slides

Chapter 11 Conflict in Organizations

Chapter 11 Conflict in Organizations. Learning Goals. Define conflict and conflict behavior in organizations Distinguish between functional and dysfunctional conflict Understand different levels and types of conflict in organizations Analyze conflict episodes and the linkages among them.

2.46k views • 64 slides

Enhancing Safety through a Drug-Free Workplace

Enhancing Safety through a Drug-Free Workplace. “This wasn’t something I wanted to deal with, but I finally realized somebody was going to get hurt if I didn’t.” Owner of a construction firm in Iowa.

1.33k views • 111 slides

Bullying in the Workplace

Bullying in the Workplace. Marvin Meickel March 2008. 1999 International Labour Organization (ILO). Definition of Workplace Violence

1.37k views • 46 slides

Conflict Management Processes

Conflict Management Processes. Chapter 9 Skillful management (not resolution). Conflict (Van Slyke, 1997). “Managers who thrive amidst the upheaval, caused by reengineering and downsizing, value conflict. Managers who lead, encourage conflict”

2.23k views • 129 slides

Effective Workplace Writing

Effective Workplace Writing. Clarity, Tone and Audience in Writing Memos . Workplace Writing. Forms letters/email reports (informational or analytical) memos proposals other Adapted from Allen, Jo. Writing in the Workplace. Massachusetts: Ally and Bacon, 1998. p.4. Workplace Writing.

1.77k views • 34 slides

Internal and External Conflict

Internal and External Conflict. What is Conflict?. A conflict is a struggle between opposing forces. There are two main kinds of conflict in stories: internal and external . . Internal Conflict.

1.95k views • 7 slides

Refuse to be a VICTIM

Violence in the Workplace. Refuse to be a VICTIM . What Is Workplace Violence?. Any physical assault, threatening behavior, or verbal abuse occurring in the workplace. The workplace may be any location either permanent or temporary where an employee partner performs any work-related duty.

2.4k views • 38 slides

Rob Fowler, Detective Ada County Sheriff’s Office School Resource Officer Eagle High School. Bullying. Course Objectives. Gain better understanding of what bullying is and what drives it. Learn to identify &amp; address bullying Identify common traits of bullies

1.9k views • 174 slides

Conflict Communication

Conflict Communication. Chapter 1 . How do you react to:. “We need to talk”. Perception of Conflict?. Probably negative All areas of life involve conflict Interpersonal, group, religious, political, gender, age, power, ethnicity, etc. Requires skillful management (not resolution)

1.83k views • 143 slides

Chapter Eight Conflict Theory

Chapter Eight Conflict Theory. Criminology 9 th and 10th edition Larry J. Siegel. CONFLICT. Criminologists who view crime as a function of social conflict and economic rivalry are aligned with a number of schools of thought, referred to as:. CRITICAL. MARXIST. RADICAL.

1.41k views • 26 slides

Conflict Theory

Conflict Theory. Rise of Conflict Theory. Based upon Marxist ideals and thoughts Revitalized in the 1950’s by many American sociologists. What is Conflict Theory?.

8.68k views • 36 slides

Bullying &amp; Harassment:

Bullying &amp; Harassment:. Its not just the Students. By: Nicole M. Proesch AEA 267 Summit April 2, 2014. Bullying &amp; Harassment in the Workplace. Bullying &amp; Harassment in the Workplace. Harassment – Iowa Code § 708.7

1.05k views • 43 slides

MANAGE WORKPLACE OPERATIONS

D1.HML.CL10.12 D1.HRM.CL9.03 D2.TRM.CL9.17. MANAGE WORKPLACE OPERATIONS. Subject Elements. This unit comprises three Elements: Monitor and improve workplace operations Plan and organize workflow Maintain workplace records Solve problems and make decisions. Assessment.

3.27k views • 175 slides

End Bullying!

End Bullying!. By: Cole Robinson. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392.

8.14k views • 801 slides

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 1+2

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 1+2. Elements of conflict. DEFINITION. Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards and interference from the other party in achieving their goal. Interpersonal Conflict.

977 views • 66 slides

Bullying and the Student with Special Needs

Bullying and the Student with Special Needs. September 27, 2012. Susan Traynor Chastain Karen Glasser Sharp. Bullying - Statutory Requirements.

1.05k views • 90 slides

Conflict Management

Conflict Management. Agenda. What is Conflict? The Struggle Spectrum Typical Sources of Conflict Styles of Handling Conflict Conflict Management Tools Wrap Up and Questions. Discussion Question. What is conflict?. What is Conflict?.

2.53k views • 25 slides

Workplace Harassment

Workplace Harassment. What Supervisors Need to Know. Session Objectives. You will be able to: Understand the requirements of the law and company policy Identify incidents of workplace harassment Handle complaints and participate in investigations effectively

3.27k views • 30 slides

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Training Center

Bullying Prevention Training Center

Getting started.

The Bullying Prevention Training Module Presentation is a research-based resource that can help you lead bullying prevention efforts in your local community.

Bullying Prevention Training Module - PowerPoint

Bullying Prevention Training Module - PDF

Organizing a Community Event

The Community Action Toolkit includes materials to create a community event using the research, ideas and bullying prevention and response strategies that you learned about in the Training Module.

Community Action Toolkit - English - PDF

Equipo de acción comunitaria - Español - PDF

Working with Stakeholders

The User Guides are tailored to 11 audiences that play a critical role in bullying prevention and include information for delivering this training.

English User Guides

• Business Professionals
• Early Education Child Care Providers
• Elected Officials
• Faith Leaders
• Health and Safety Professionals
• Law Enforcement Officers
• Mental Health Professionals
• Parents Caregivers
• Recreational Leaders
• School Administrators
• Young Professional Mentors

Guías de Usuario

• Profesionales empresariales
• Proveedores de cuidado infantil y educación inicial
• Funcionarios electos
• Líderes espirituales
• Profesionales de la salud y seguridad
• Profesionales de salud mental
• Funcionarios de seguridad pública
• Padres y proveedores de cuidado
• Líderes recreacionales
• Administradores de escuelas
• Profesionales y mentores jóvenes

Trainings for Educators and School Bus Drivers

The National Center of Safe Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE) offers bullying prevention training toolkits filled with research-based, user friendly materials trainers can use for events and workshops. Each Training Toolkit includes a step-by-step facilitator's guide, a customizable power point presentation, handouts, and feedback form.

Creating a Safe and Respectful Environment on Our Nation's School Buses

Creating a Safe and Respectful Environment in Our Nation’s Classrooms

Get Smart, Get Help, Get Safe

Learn From Others

The Take Action Today booklet features stories of how different community leaders are working hard to prevent bullying in their schools and their communities.

Take Action Today Blog Series - PDF

Evidence Review of Bullying Prevention Strategies

The “Strengthen the Evidence Base for Maternal and Child Health (SEMCH) Programs” is a Health Resources and Services Administration-funded initiative that aims to support state Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Title V programs in developing evidence-based or evidence-informed State Action Plans in responding to the National Outcome Measures, National Performance Measures, and State Performance Measures to facilitate the transformation of the MCH Title V Block Grant program.

SEMCH recently released an evidence review of the current literature on strategies to address bullying. Although the intended audience for these briefs is Title V state health departments, the information has broad applicability to any individual or organization interested in bullying prevention. You can access to 3-page brief on the SEMCH website, as well as the full report.

Additional Resources

• How to Talk About Bullying
• Respond to Bullying

• [email protected]

A Guide to Workplace Bullying

• February 10, 2022

Bullying is an all-too-common workplace issue. And if reports are correct, it seems to be on the rise.

Workplace bullying is one of the most damaging issues for any organization, as it can affect employee productivity, financial performance, and brand strength. On top of that, there’s no moral justification for letting it happen.

Employees deserve to work in comfortable environments of psychological safety . They should be able to relax, be themselves, and collaborate with others without fear or emotional upset.

Workplace Bullying Statistics in 2021

• 1 in 4 UK workers have been bullied at work. The same amount also reported feeling left out in the workplace too.
• One survey of 3,000 American adults found that workers across the age, gender, and education spectrum experience high levels of hostile behaviors at work.
• 37% of Australian workers report having been cursed or yelled at in the workplace.
• 1 in 5 American workers have been subjected to some form of verbal abuse, unwanted sexual attention, threats, or humiliating behavior at work.
• 1 in 8 American workers have experienced direct verbal abuse or threats.
• 8% of women aged 25-34 report having had unwanted sexual attention in the workplace during the last month.
• Men aged 25-34 without a college degree report the highest levels of bullying , with 35% having experienced bullying at least once recently.
• 1 out of 5 students in the US report being bullied, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics .
• Workplace bullying is estimated to cost Australian businesses more than $6bn per year .

Why is it important to deal with workplace bullying?

It’s fairly easy to understand why this is important. Bullying is a workplace issue that can have tons of negative impacts on employees, management, company culture, and overall productivity.

If bullying becomes widespread enough, stories can leak out to the public and damage your brand – nobody wants to do business with a company of bullies, and not many people want to work in a place where bullies can get away with it.

Workplace bullying can have mild to severe impacts on victims, including:

• low morale/loss of motivation
• inability to concentrate or complete tasks
• lowered productivity
• social anxiety and avoiding people
• anxiety and depression
• stress, PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), and other mental health issues
• reduced confidence and self-esteem
• sleep problems
• other consequences of stress like digestive issues and a weakened immune system
• more frequent absences from work because of the above issues

If it’s obvious that one person is a bully, others might alter their behavior to avoid their attention. They might be reluctant to do anything distinctive that makes them stand out, or they could shy away in situations that require collaborative creativity. And even when bullies are dealt with by management, there’s a loss of productivity while they have to go through disciplinary procedures, maybe even getting suspended too.

Bullying can cause trust issues within your teams, too; not just directly between the bully and the bullied employee, but across the organization, fostering a culture of secrecy, gossip, and paranoia if left unchecked.

There’s also a measurable financial cost to bullying. If staff leave due to being bullied, there are the obvious costs of replacing them and training new staff. But there’s also the possibility of dealing with costly legal action if things get to a certain point, too. And higher incidences of sick leave and lower productivity will have a financial impact, as well.

No matter how competitive and high-pressure your work culture is, when positive aggression tips over into harmful bullying, you have to act quickly and decisively to stamp it out.

What should I do if I’m being bullied at work?

The first thing to do if you’re wondering how to deal with bullying at work is to tell someone about it .

It’s not always easy to do, of course. You might have a more reserved personality type, or you could have had a bad experience in the past when trusting someone with a personal problem.

But talking is almost always your best starting point, whether it’s with your line manager, a colleague, a close friend, or a family member. Getting it out of your head means you’re under less of a mental burden keeping it a secret, and talking it through will make you feel better. What’s more, you might end up getting some great advice on how to deal with the situation.

It’s also important to keep records of everything . Bullies can spread their deeds out into multiple small-scale transgressions, which individually, don’t seem much. It’s hard to complain about little things without feeling a bit silly – which is the reaction they’re looking for.

But if you note down details of each occurrence, you can build up a timeline that clearly illustrates a campaign of workplace harassment over time. You can take a report like this to management, presenting irrefutable evidence that you’re being victimized. If it’s noticeably affecting your job performance, any competent manager will want to intervene straight away.

Another option is to be proactive and confront the bully yourself – fight your corner.

You might think back to a parent telling you to “ stand up for yourself ” in the school playground when someone was bullying you – it’s easier said than done. Or how about “ just ignore them ” – well-meaning advice that’s nigh on impossible to follow when somebody really has it out for you. But if management isn’t being especially helpful, it might turn out to be the most effective strategy.

Instead of going in all guns blazing, you could take a less confrontational route.

You could try letting the bully know how their words or actions made you feel. They’ll already have a good idea, of course, if their actions are intentional, but by putting it all out there, it might cause a wave of guilt causing them to stop.

Try to figure out why they have a problem with you. Offer to lay it all out on the table, apologize for anything you might have done to upset them, and clear the air. This strategy won’t work for every situation and does take a bit of bravery, but it might be the quickest, most effective way to solve your bully problem. You might even end up becoming friends with them.

What are the signs that someone is being bullied at work?

There’s a bunch of different bullying at work signs that you should look out for. When coworkers are having problems with a bully, they might be reluctant to bring attention to it. So here are some of the signs to look out for:

• They’re absent from work more often
• They seem dissatisfied, downbeat, and unmotivated
• They’re not performing so well at their job
• They make excuses for avoiding work-related social events
• You hear others gossiping about them

You might see one of these signs on its own, which doesn’t necessarily mean they’re being bullied. There might be a perfectly reasonable explanation.

But if you start noticing a couple of these signs together, something is probably going wrong for your coworker behind the scenes. Reach out, talk to them, and offer to help.

Final thoughts

Bullying and harassment in the workplace is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Certain social movements from the 2010s onwards have given more people the confidence to speak up when they witness injustice in their organization, but there’s still a long way to go.

Tackling bullying takes a combined effort from coworkers and management. Workers need to be supported both with the presence of official procedures and the confidence that their complaints will be taken seriously.

If workplace bullying goes unchecked, the negative effects on employees, management, and the public reputation of the company can be enormous – so it’s something to deal with swiftly and judiciously.

Read the full article here .

This blog was printed with permission.

About the Author: Michael is a passionate writer and has written for other major publishing sites such as Trello, Unilever, and Timetastic. At F4S, he writes research-based articles and guides covering leadership, management, and everything involving workplace wellness.

Related posts:

• 10 Tips for Becoming a Workplace Politics Rebel
• A Post-Brinker Victory for Employees: Bradley v. Networkers International, LLC
• Furious to Curious: 7 Signs You’re Intimidated by Your Employer (… and How to Overcome It)
• More and More Workers Demanding Paid Sick Days

Copyright © 2024 Workplace Fairness, All rights reserved.

• Conditions d'utilisation
• Politique de confidentialité
• Politique des liens
• Accessibilité
• Plan du site

Madeline Messa

Madeline Messa est étudiante en troisième année de licence à la faculté de droit de l'université de Syracuse. Elle est diplômée en journalisme de Penn State. Grâce à ses recherches juridiques et à ses écrits pour Workplace Fairness, elle s'efforce de fournir aux gens les informations dont ils ont besoin pour être leur meilleur défenseur.